Since I can’t actually read the study, but I can think of several possible flaws with the study– besides its age– it’s far from sufficient reason to enact a law.
(Including: are all the stats lumping restrained and unrestrained? [ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4907a2.htm ] What are the numbers involved? [who isn’t familiar with the “25% reduction over 5 years” type argument where there are 8 yearly cases?] Did they get raw data from USFARS, since the site doesn’t offer 0-13 as age group[s]? Has anyone done a study to double-check the USFARS data, since they don’t touch on crashes without fatality in 30 days? Given that 2/3 of child crash fatalities involve the child’s driver being drunk, how likely is another law to have any effect at all? [ http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm ] I’m sure others can think of good questions.)

Yes, the ban on drop-side cribs was silly. However, I’m afraid that there is good reason to put children in the back seat (assuming you agree reasonably decreasing risk is a good reason).

I don’t think you have the idea of “constitutional right” squared away, either. No one is suggesting there the federal government cannot require labeling.

1) You didn’t bring up if the Feds can require labeling, you brought up a possible majority desire for something as a justification for doing it.
2) You didn’t address the flip-side of your claim– you point out there’s no enumerated right to sell food without telling someone what it is; I point out that there’s no enumerated right to force someone to tell you what is in food in order to offer it for sale. Probably because the constitution didn’t touch on selling food, with or without labeling laws to be determined at a later time.
3) Might want to go easy on your high horse- you might get your nose taken off, holding it up so high. A constitutional right is one which the gov’t is not allowed to be legally denied by that government. The lack of a constitutional right to a specific thing does not automatically mean that the flip side is a right, nor does it mean the gov’t has the power to do anything that isn’t specifically protected– especially under the US constitution, with the whole delegated powers thing.

The public can will stuff all it wants– it’s one of the flaws of pure democracy, and why we aren’t one.

I don’t think you have the idea of “constitutional right” squared away, either. No one is suggesting there the federal government cannot require labeling. The question here is whether they should.

(I agree with you on loading poll questions. Still, I think – and I don’t know but I think – these polls do reflect the will of the public.)

Is there a constitutional right to force everyone who wants to sell food to pay for what the majority wants? “Food sellers” are people too, after all, and we’re not a pure democracy where 51% can vote the other 49% into slavery.

You HAVE seen the petitions to ban “Dihydrogen monoxide,” right?

Give me the money, and I can probably get an opinion poll that that says most anything. That it’s something as nebulous as “comprehensive menu labeling” would make it easier….