> "I'll buy anything that doesn't have sugar or HFCS in it" leads
> companies to come up with "evaporated cane juice" and "brown
> rice syrup" and all this other BS.
you are still blaming the victim.
it's exactly the same as saying that investors who are only willing to invest in legitimate businesses leads to con-men pretending to be legitimate.
this is not the investors' fault, any more than it is the consumers fault that scumbag con-men try to con them.
> something is "all natural,"
you do realise that "all natural" and similar crap has NOTHING to do with mandatory labeling and everything to do with marketing (aka professional lying), right?
and that part of the reason for mandatory labelling laws is to partially undo some of the bullshit of marketing, to give consumers facts rather than feelgood slogans like "natural" (meaningless) or "99% fat-free!" (means 20+% sugar)
> They are DRIVING businesses to try this crap.
no, advertising weasels are trying (and mostly succeeding) to fool the public into buying their shit. again, you are blaming the victim.
> That doesn't mean they are to blame for deceptive business
then stop blaming them
> but they are partially to blame for what they eat when they
> mindlessly support that business model.
and here you go again. once more blaming the victims who have no ability to control what corporate lobbyists do to ensure that labels have only worthless crap on them so that they can't be used for informed decision-making - in your world, that's entirely the consumers' fault.