I agree. The amount of scrutiny that goes into specifying, procuring, and then validating something as seemingly simple as a label would be eye-opening to someone who hasn't lived it. Not to mention that I spent a solid 40 hours last year writing code to print what was apparently a very simple, but automated, label.
If I saw a misspelling like that it would indeed be cause for hitting the Big Red Button.
As someone from outside the industry, I started reading the article with the mindset that this was about counterfeit parts and was interested in the outcome. Yet the more I read the more I was asking myself what the article was actually about. Eventually I just stopped reading, looked at the comments, and learned that it was about a typo.
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter how much process there is to avoid this sort of thing. It is a big industry and we should expect an error as trivial as a typo to slip through eventually. The reader would have been much better served if the author was upfront about that, discussed why the error was significant, and offered some insight into how the industry normally avoids this type of error. Maybe they did get to that point eventually, but this reader will never know since this reader gave up when the article felt self-serving rather than informative.
If I saw a misspelling like that it would indeed be cause for hitting the Big Red Button.