Thomas we agree. The end producer is responsible and if not informed about inputs cannot vouch for his own product. Were you in this business would you take that risk?
It would depend on the specific product I sell. To take two extreme cases, I wouldn't produce mayonaise without making sure my eggs are free of salmonellas. On the other hand, I'd have no trouble at all producing T-shirts without knowing if my cotton is from a gene-manipulated crop or not. Your earlier implication that the producer must always know whether his inputs are GM is unsupported. I suspect you know this, and that this is the reason you detect non-existent chagrin in my post when I ask you for evidence.
Let me suggest that fallibility does not mean you are always wrong. Government officials are more likely to be disinterested than company officials. No one exists to lie, but it is done even by company executives.
a) I'm not suggesting politicians are always wrong. I'm just unwilling to take your word that they are less likely to be wrong than the businesses whose decisions they're interfering with. b) Government officials are more likely to be disinterested than company officials, but they are also more likely to be incompetent. The reason is simple: If you're disinterested, your incentive to get informed will be low. c) I agree company executives lie, but again, I won't accept without evidence your implication that politicians and bureaucrats lie less. People are people, and people lie -- no matter if they work for a business or for government.
It is chagrin.
No, just disagreement and a pig-headed insistence on evidence.