This is a rather explicit use of the Naturalistic Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

"The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature..." (3rd paragraph in your link)

Further down the article it explains that the terms have been used interchangeable for a long time. Language is a funny thing.

The more relevant article for those who are curious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Note how there is no actual substance to the classification as "fallacy". In general, it only makes sense if it condemned some absolute claim that "anything natural is better than anything man made". But people appealing to nature rarely if ever claim that - even when they appear to be making that argument, it's because they generalize.

What they actually mean is that something natural will tend to be better - and there's nuance about why that might be so (having benefitted from evolutionary pressure and adaptation, a thing empirically tested and shown working, more effortessly fitting to our biology, and so on). Of course we're talking of man-made stuff thus-far, not some futuristic utopia where we know how to make everything better.

So unless the claim is "all natural things are always better", it's doubtful how the "fallacy" accusation actually applies in real life arguments. Does it address the claim that "X is better _because_ it is natural"? Well, doesn't that being the case or not, depend on the quality of the specific non-natural alternatives to X?

If those aren't any good, then X is indeed better not by chance, but precisely because it's natural. That is, because it had millions of years to evolve, millenia to be used and tested by humans, and so on, and it had all sort of evolutionary pressures to improve it.

I don’t think GP is making a moral argument. It seems more they are arguing that novel techniques lead to novel consequences, which could be harmful. GP assesses the potential risks outweigh the benefits of a new process when a process with known consequences exists.

If their argument is not about morality but instead about risk avoidance, would it still be fallacious reasoning? They could even still be wrong (because they incorrectly calculated the risks) without suffering a fallacy, right?

I am genuinely asking. I don’t know the answer.

It's rather good advice, based on massive real-world empirical testing by billions for centuries (which would have uncovered statistically significant adverse issues way sooner), the Lindy effect, plus a basic understanding of profit motives and of the fast-track cavalier way lab-made substitutes get into the market.

Not to mention that the use of fallacy listings is the lowest form of argumentation (or, in any case, close).