Your concerns are valid and I agree they should have been discussed in the article. Had they discussed them and explained/refuted them, then you would have the

Your concerns are valid and I agree they should have been discussed in the article. Had they discussed them and explained/refuted them, then you would have the choice whether to believe them or discount them. (Most GMOs target yield, shelf-life, and appearance, or are resistant to a proprietary herbicide, rather than introducing pesticides; the effects are well-studied). I included the uncited explanation as a parenthetical remark because I don't see the actual facts as central to your comment, which more stated that the anti-GMO viewpoint should be respected. I think the goal of the piece was to address the feelings portion of GMO avoidance. The use of "moms" and the attention to the butterfly logo highlight this emotional appeal. I think this piece was written to address an audience that approaches these decisions from a different level. Many consumers don't approach GMO avoidance with your concerns; they see prominent non-GMO labeling and make an emotional decision from that. The article intends to discuss that aspect. I'm not using emotional decision making as a pejorative; it is the default when a person doesn't have time to learn about a subject in-depth. Many people simply do not have the bandwidth to look up GMO articles while at work or while taking care of their families.