Allergies are not the only non-ethical reason some people choose to avoid certain foods, and it's also not a all-or-not situation. Those who are concerned with

Allergies are not the only non-ethical reason some people choose to avoid certain foods, and it's also not a all-or-not situation. Those who are concerned with high levels of "bad" cholesterol, risk of colon cancer, too much "high-quality" protein, etc... may look to decrease or eliminate certain foods such as meat, milk or egg. Also, I wonder if you think that "what you don't know can't hurt you" applies to other ethical concerns. If you're government tortures people but doesn't tell you, does that insulate either them or you from any ethical responsibility? Would you also believe, in that hypothetical case, that a journalist who brought the story to light only served to weaken the people's faith in the government, or is there value in uncovering deception which prevents people from exercising their ethical choices?