Exactly. I find the article very misleading, and intentionally muddying the issue.
A quote:
> And livestock, a pillar of our food system for millenia, are major culprits in climate change, water shortages, biodiversity losses and massive degradation and destruction of forests and other ecosystems — compelling us to quickly move to a predominantly plant-based diet.
> To meet these challenges, we must employ all of the technological tools at our disposal.
Actually, if we were to move to a predominantly plant-based diet, that would solve a major part of our food problem. At the moment, we're choosing to feed cattle and even throw away food, rather than feed the hungry. World hunger is in a large part an economic choice stemming from economic inequality.
But where the article really muddies the issue is here:
> It is safe to say that, without systemic genetic modification of crops and livestock, civilization would not exist.
and:
> But the process of genetic modification, central to progress in agriculture throughout history, has become controversial.
The article pretends that selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing, and claims that the thing that people have been doing for centuries is suddenly controversial. They are different things, and the one that's been going on for centuries and forms the basis for modern agriculture is not remotely controversial. But he wants his genetic engineering to piggy-back on the accomplishments of selective breeding.
Whatever your opinion on the necessity or danger of genetic engineering is, the above is a dishonest argument that doesn't help the discussion at all.