Why? They know it's wheat. Why should they be able to track arbitrary characteristics of the wheat? It's like asking them to track which wheat is grown on Tuesdays, or which wheat is grown by Jews. Their system wouldn't be set up for it.

Supermarkets where I come from do check characteristics of ingridients like pesticide content. They generally care about providing quality products.

If a supermarket wouldn't do quality management of their suppliers I would consider that bad.

Containing peas is a subcase of a general requirement "list all ingredients". It certainly implies that consumers do and should care about the ingredients.

Information provision is not about whether people should care about it but whether they do. In this case plenty of people do care about.

But anyway, that's fighting the hypothetical.

I don't see the point of why pointing out that a given example doesn't work is bad. Don't make fictional examples that wouldn't work in reality in the first place, if you want to train reality based reflexes.

Being in touch with reality is a lot more valuable than being in touch with hypotheticals.

for instance "this produce comes from a company whose owner has had an abortion".

Let's say a business owner asks prospective employees whether they had an abortion and refuses to hire people who had. Do you think that courts would allow that? No, they wouldn't. They would likely argue that it's a protected characteristic.

As I said above, I don't think information about categories that belong to protected characteristics should be required.

But even if you would actually engage with what I'm saying and pick a characteristic of the grower that isn't a protected characteristic, that's not about the ingridients of the food. GMO's do contain different proteins that otherwise wouldn't be in the product.