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.