I am conflicted on disclosure of such things. I developed a soy allergy back when some soy products did not have to be listed in food or could be listed in various creative ways, result was that I ate a whole lot better because I stopped buying food that had an ingredient list longer than 1 and I found my grocery bill was also cheaper. Now they have to say "soy protein" instead of "vegetable protein" or "plant derived protein" and they even have it in the list of allergen information in nice and easy to spot bold print at the bottom of the ingredients. Now I can eat some of those things I grew up with and did miss but my grocery bill has inflated and I do not eat as well as I once did, the winner seems to be capitalism more than the consumer. Not that capitalism is to blame here, I don't have to buy those foods, but I am not so sure these sorts of campaigns for full disclosure are actually a win for the average person, do we really need more choice in our consumerism? We have the choice to not buy things which do not tell us what we want to know about them and given the massive number of options for most everything we have these days that seems like enough choice.
I can't tell what your argument is. That it's bad to have information about what's in the food that you eat because knowing might cause you to buy different, more expensive food instead and then the capitalists would win?
That is probably because I did not make an argument, as I plainly stated, I am conflicted. If you had to pull an argument out of this it would be that in a capitalist system there are times when it is better for the consumer to meet the system on its own terms instead trying to force it through legislation, support the business that do not need the government to legislate how they should behave instead of rewarding those who don't because they complied to the new laws which forced their hand.
I walk down the soap aisle of any store I feel ill