Only the consumers of a specific food product are relevant for the principle given in the argument. The argument just doesn’t make any claims about consumers of food in general, only the consumers of Crackly Crisps.

It’s irrelevant to the argument whether a product’s ingredients are safe for human consumption, only whether most consumers of the product would be upset to learn that those ingredients are included in the product.

The argument doesn’t make any value judgments about genetically engineered ingredients, product labeling, or anything else relevant.

The argument doesn’t make this claim. It also never implies that this is the case.

The argument treats a sufficient condition—an ingredient upsetting most consumers of a product—as if it were a necessary condition for labeling a product as containing that ingredient. The absence of a sufficient condition doesn’t guarantee that the product need not be labeled.