Life Improvement Protocol:

Move as much as you can of your decision space into "default trust" environments.

Save the "default skepticism" environments for areas where your counterparties are particularly sketchy and/or the parts of your job that make you a professional risk-sniffer-outer (journalist, investor, cop, etc.).

Default skepticism is a hell of a bad way to go through life buying rice and greeting your coworkers in the morning.

Your sensory inputs provide a hell of lot of information about some rice.

I'd also argue that experience, in many locales, recommends being skeptical that there's anything wrong with food sold in a store.

Default skepticism doesn't mean verify everything every time. It means that when confronted with a new claim, a claim you've not decided yet its validity, you should abstain from taking a position until you have enough evidence to accept or refute the claim.

In the case of your example, I gather you've bought rice before, you've probably bought at that store before, you've used money before and you've eaten food before. By the looks of it, you've probably cooked before with that same kind of rice. Hence you are not evaluating the rice and all its production line from scratch every time you buy the rice. You already evaluated that claim and you've found that the store and their products are acceptable to you and that is why you probably bought the rice.

In that case you abandoned long ago the default position because you already had the required evidence to take an action. Which is the only purpose of the default position.

The default position is not the forever position.