"Added sugar" is an interesting one. On the one hand, anything that makes big industry groups howl with pain over added transparency is probably worth it just for that reason alone. It is a bit odd insofar as it's something the manufacturer has to report on, vs. something that can be deduced through chemical testing — but, yeah, that's still doable. And, honestly, I think it would be a good thing to let folks know — just as letting them know about trans fat was useful.
(And, no, it's not a "Nanny State" thing — quite the opposite. It's an "informing the public and letting them make their own decisions" kind of thing.)
The crucial FDA nutrition label battle you probably don’t know about, but should
There’s sugar in just about everything today, and the vast majority of it is added during food production. Shouldn’t consumers know how much is in what they buy?
I also lean toward full disclosure, but +Tad Donaghe (specifically in regards to GMO labeling) expresses a belief that disclosure that serves no real scientific purpose is useless disclosure.
From that perspective, I could see an argument that the amount of "sugars" that have been added really don't matter; it's the total content of "sugars" that matter.
(And yes, I put the word "sugars" in quotes, because I personally define sugar as not including stuff made from corn…another type of disclosure that I'd personally prefer to see.)
+John E. Bredehoft I agree that "meaningfulness" is important in something like this. I would find added sugars meaningful (alongside total sugars). I want to know where my taste is being manipulated and other tastes being masked.
GMO labeling — doesn't mean anything to me. Until it's demonstrated to be meaningful (and the meaning folk attribute to it isn't just emotionalism), I don't need it on labeling.