I only skimmed the article. The thrust seems to be:
Regulators allowed some nasty chemicals to be used in the past.
Maybe GMOs will eventually be discovered to have harmful effects.
Therefore we should ban all GM technology.
The author of the article is scared of GM tech and does not believe that the mountain of evidence for its safety is or ever could be adequate, because no matter what you study, maybe the harm will be something else, so he wants to ban all GM tech.
There is a fallacy in his reasoning. I am terrible at "Name that logical fallacy," but in this case it's that he's imagining possible as-yet undiscovered risks, while ignoring the massive and well-established benefits. By his logic, he should never get in a car because it might be in an accident; he should never go for a walk because he might trip and break his arm; he should never leave his house because he might get hit by a bus.