I feel as though they are upset that they got away with obfuscation (fraud) so long that they are (incredulously) calling foul when people want them to come correct. Meanwhile it was they who all along had been fraudulent -in my estimation.

I would agree with you. If we all labeled our food, we might live in a "brave new world" where eating pink slime is fine - but only because we are used to it.

Health effects aside - if the meat had been labeled for the last 20 years there wouldn't have been such a "surprise" and a "reaction" when they found out.

I think I'm ok with that. We tell people smoking cigarettes are bad for their health, yet people continue smoking. Sometimes one has to take responsibility for one's choices. I prefer clear (truthful) labeling over the alternative presented which is relying on surprise (and shock) to effect change, or at least disseminate information.

As information becomes available and becomes more attainable (searchable), people are better equipped to make nutritional decisions. All we can hope is to supply the information and let people decide.

So long as people can be sure than words like "natural", "free range", "fresh", all mean what common usage would suppose they meant, I'd be ok.

In this case, for example, in common usage, beef means cow flesh. It's not equivalent to "cow". It's a subset of cow, in English. Cartilage, sinew and bone are not flesh. That's how I see it.

Before cigarette companies didn't say smoking was bad for your health, and more people smoked.

Once it was labeled and clear, less people smoked.

Clearly labeling allows people the information to make choices, which is why labeling is such an issue of contention with corporations who profit off additions that customers might avoid.