Because, like it or not, a label that says "note, this product contains acids" would alarm many people who would immediately ask themselves "Wait, why do they need to tell me that? Better just play it safe."
> Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer?
It's not about hiding information, it's about the regrettable fact that mandatory labelling communicates a lot more than just the words on the label.
What I don't know, because I don't have source data, is what will spliced in gene based foods (that's what I mean by GMO, not the equivocation straw man people throw up in the Mendel sense) do to both the human GI tract and to the environment at a macro level. Until then, I'd like the option of "noping" out. Just the option. I might not even do it because as Stewie says, "They say star light gives your cancer, but what doesn't these days?" I just want the option.
Scientists have come along and said, "Stupid layman, trust us. Of course we're just like those people who said use lead in paint, then in gas, and advocated for Asbestos". That' not scientific. I want to see the data. Until then, my default is skepticism, you know the rational default [1].
And therefore I trust you to make a reasoned decision. How about your cousin who is on deepak chopra's mailing list, though? Will she make the same reasoned decision?
All the debate is about is mandatory labels on the side of the can. How about, people who know what they're doing and can make reasoned decisions, can look up information on their smart phone or whatever- but the people who are going to make a kneejerk emotional decision that winds up penalizing GMO foods and benefiting the organic alternative for emotional reasons won't see any scary labels that exert undue influence on the marketplace- would that be a reasonable compromise?