```quote
As Moss pointed out, even the FDA-mandated nutrition facts box that has appeared on most packaged food since the ’90s “was conceived by none other than the food industry itself as a way of placating us.” Back in the ’70s, he explained, consumer advocate Ralph Nader was talking “really loudly and publicly about the evil-sounding” chemicals that the food industry was feeding to unknowing consumers. “As a way of countering that attack, [they figured] why don’t we disclose lots of stuff on the labels of packages and if we do so, people will feel comforted by the idea that the government is keeping track and it must be okay,” Moss said. “What I thought was our friend was in fact a conceit of the industry to lull us into complacency.”
```
Alternative read: activist makes a stink about a bad industry practice and industry self-regulates an effective response that helps the situation significantly. Is it perfect? Of course not, but my understanding is that the US has some of the strongest food labeling regulations in the world (similar to the EU's, much better than e.g. China) and they're being continuously tweaked to be better. As a consumer I can look at a food label and see basically everything that's in it that I care about, e.g. HFCS, and that means customer preferences drive company behavior. What this article sees as crass language about "good labeling" from the chicken concentrate manufacturers, I see as evidence that food labels work to change corporate behavior. If there were no food labeling laws who's to say that store-bought chicken stock would have any chicken in it at all?
Maybe I just have more of a stomach for industrial food production? I mean I make homemade stock and it's delicious and in a different league than anything from the store, but sometimes a meal needs some chicken water and you have nothing in the freezer, you know? It's not so bad. If we want to talk about store-bought crimes against the culinary arts let's talk about store-bought bread.