Privacy Policies exist almost exclusively to protect companies from consumers.

Labeling is legally binding but also highly regulated so that labeling protects consumers. The liabilities and remedies are standardized via law.

If privacy policies existed to protect consumers from companies you would probably see more people willing to acknowledge their importance.

Nutritional info is legally required, and you cannot legally misrepresent it, doesn't that make it legally binding?

Nutritional information is information. It is legislated and regulated, but not a contract. The manufacturer has to comply with regulations, but that is not considered a legally binding contract, and failure to comply does not constitute breach of contract. To be clear, just because there's a legal penalty attached for failure to comply does not constitute a contract between the manufacturer and the government.

Similarly, the individual is not bound to any contract to the manufacturer by purchasing a can of beans. They are, on the other hand, when purchasing software. It's a crucial difference.

It's not quite the same to describe something that already exists, as opposed to describing actions that have or have not happened yet (nor will they for the duration of a policy lifespan). Auditing ingredients is _relatively_ trivial to trying to audit the amorphous "privacy" restrictions.

Legally binding for the people writing it, not for the people reading it.

In spirit-of-the-law terms (maybe letter of the law too), I'd argue that privacy policy is not a contract. A contract requires a meeting of minds. It's well-known that privacy policies are rarely read and to most people, incomprehensible or unreadable for simple lack of time in the day. That they are binding contracts is a fiction that the legal system just hasn't seen its way through yet.