While this might explain why people reacted the way they did, we do not need to assume a specific reason for the reaction in order for the argument to discuss the negative consequences of that reaction.

The argument already states that many foods contain genetically altered ingredients, and there is no need for a further assumption that in the specific case study almost all foods fell into that category.,

This explains why other countries should learn from the UK’s example. If this were not true, then the case study of the UK would not be relevant to the other countries, and they would have no reason not to pass similar laws.

This may not be relevant, as the argument implies that these labels are not warning labels, but if it is relevant it actually undermines the argument. If this were true, and genetically altered ingredients are bad, then this may be a reason to implement similar laws despite the bad consequences.

Whether or not these new regulations tend to cause a change in consumers’ eating habits is not relevant to the argument’s specific focus on how producers will make harmful changes in response to the new regulations.