Is the speed/delay of past discoveries a valid justification for caution in the absence of evidence?

This came to me while reading this article for my environmental science class. Just over halfway down an interviewee uses the time it took to discover that DDT was dangerous as justification for caution regarding GMOs.

To me such a comparison is not a valid justification as it seems to ignore how much the speed and quality of science has advanced since 1962 and even more so since 1874. Perhaps valid is the wrong word and unfair more appropriate. To me saying, "It took years to see the impact," is similar to comparing how quickly modern computers can brute force Enigma to how long it took the bombe. Or how fast a super car can go compared to a Model T. Yeah it's not wrong but it's not at all a fair comparison.

What are yalls thoughts? Is my reasoning flawed?

Also this is not for homework. I should have been doing that instead of writing this but I couldn't think about the questions with this one burning a hole in my brain.

EDIT: Also if this is not the right sub for that could you point me in the right direction?