Nope, it doesn't bother me and yep, I'd go for that rate.
If an initiate in wine drinking opens a bottle with a defect in a cork and finds it unpleasant (by the way, a young wine drinker won't notice THAT much difference, since bad corks do not affect that musch except for severe and rare cases) and decides not to drink wine, well, then it's his/ her problem of being a bit shallow in logic. By the way, to be introduced into wine-drinking, you need to know someone who does it, so he could direct you for a while AND indicate it to you that this particular bottle of wine is damaged.
Good wine-makers test their corks. I mean REALLY test them.
10% rate is not that high. It also is not random. You'd usually have a group of bad corks, rather than every tenth bottle. I believe I have had a coupe of bottles with bad corks. Not a big deal. Taste is a bit spoiled. Wine was not expensive. I can live with that.
10% failure rate with meat? Sonds dangerous, except for I'm not sure how a meat can really fail. You buy not expensive meat, it might be not the freshest and purest around, but it's what you pay for. You buy the most expensive meat - you have an assurance that it will be the best, the human kind can make (with help of animal of course ...) at the moment. I eat meat a lot. Haven't had a single problem. You buy the cheapest meat around from England or USA (no offence), well, then it's up to you to know if you're lucky enough to be able to afford this risk.
A cannot except a plastic cork in my bottle of wine. It's just against everything. AND, do not forget the fact that wine can remain in bottles for a few years improving itself. Wouldn't improve much with a plastic cork.
The hybrid type. Sounds like an american "know-how" to me. It's just not the right way of doing things from my point of view.
I believe that either you exagerate the problem for no particular reason, either you make real bad corks in USA.