Did you even read the article? What you just said is exactly the initial complaint the author is making about the misapplication of the precautionary principle.

"I have no idea if <pigs can fly>. But if I have a model of <flight in biological animals> and <pigs> happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they cannot <fly>.

<Birds> are proven to <be biological animals capable of flight>. A <pig> is not a <bird>. That is not proof that <pigs> cannot <be biological animals capable of flight>."

Does this make absolutely any sense to you?