Also, regulatory capture can lead to regulation that causes market inefficiency, but (if you accept my previous argument) lack of regulation may also cause market inefficiency (e.g. due to obfuscated product information) so it's not necessarily better.
I think consumers want to know what is in the food they're eating, so you would get many startups who study what makes something healthy, or finding cheaper ways to list calories and ingredients, instead of listening to the government telling you about the food pyramid etc.
Even if customers deem it too expensive to pay for the nutrition facts, then how do you or others gain the right to intervene in a voluntary act between two people?
For the record, I think the argument is correct, I just don't think it justifies concealing the information, people should be able to use whatever arbitrary or incorrect criteria they please when it comes to how they spend their money.
Yes, because people are used to it now, so they'd be suspicious of products omitting them. Nonetheless, I suspect even that would slowly be eroded over time.
>you would get many startups who study what makes something healthy
You have plenty of diet purveyors telling you what to eat now. Most of them are not particularly evidence-based, and many of them are straight up wrong, but people listen to them and they make money regardless. People have little way to judge their accuracy.
Many people believe that regulations can create something far closer to the economic ideal of a Free Market than property rights alone. For example, food labelling regulation arguably moves the market closer to perfect information, which is a necessary feature of an idealised Free Market.