Another way to think about it: if non-toxic food was optional, how much would you pay for it? And how much would you pay for an access to a judical system?
It's not something that you want to have as an option.
So, interestingly, it's not only a valid question, but one that shows how overdone a comparison to toxic food is.
It's even less optional if you are required to use this or that service by your employer (e.g. company-wide Gmail).
Going back to the analogy, you don't need to eat in this particular place, but how do you know any one you'd choose does not poison their food? By empty promises alone?