Imagine you could pass any law you wish; HOWEVER, to keep it interesting, it can't have a moral component on your end, i.e. it can't be something you think should be done as a "good person" action, because otherwise we'd keep seeing the same few things here (and a good chunk of them would be virtue signalling) and that would be boring. (So you're not allowed to ban something you think is harmful to people in general, but you ARE allowed to ban something you think is annoying to a lot of people, or harmful to you in particular.) What law do you pass?
For me, under those restrictions… I can't ban some particular things that annoy me because they ALSO have a moral component from my perspective (that is, I think they're annoying AND they cause harm to the world), which excludes the stuff I complain about the most. So I'll have to go with the stuff I complain about SECOND-most.
I'd make a change to product-labelling laws. "What the thing actually fucking IS" would have to be in larger text than "what flavour or scent it is", because I shouldn't have to squint to figure out if something is shampoo or conditioner, or deodorant or anti-perspirant, especially if it's a brand I don't normally buy.