While I agree entirely with many points about misleading labelling and the relative safety of GMO foods, these sorts of articles inevitably leave out any notion

While I agree entirely with many points about misleading labelling and the relative safety of GMO foods, these sorts of articles inevitably leave out any notion of the actual risks that heavily pro-GMO policies might produce. Such as the massive risk to long-term biodiversity of crowding out non-GMO breeds in the name of "less wasteful" but far less diverse GMO breeds. Not to mention the well-established risk of lowering the quality of the food itself in terms of taste and nutrition in pursuit of shelf appearance and lifetime, pest resistance, and harvesting density, which long before direct genetic modification was possible ruined many common produce varieties. These are entirely reasonable concerns, well proven out by past experience with agricultural monocultures and counterproductive "improvements" in the shelf product. And so while it's fair and probably justified to avoid the "Non-GMO" certification label itself, it's not justifiable to dismiss concerns about trends in GMO produce overall by quoting "science" that only addresses the safety of GMO produce and not the larger concerns.