I'm thinking it's leaning towards propaganda. It's posted by an organization that is led by this man:
Jeffrey Smith | Academics Review.
I'm not going to run through every point on the list, but for the first one, it suggests that health risks have increased with use of GMOs, when in reality that's confounded by new definitions of things like autism widening the umbrella for more things that it covers. So that number isn't actually increasing, the diagnoses are since they're being more inclusive. From what I've read, there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed study of GMOs showing that they have any negative health effects. Each GMO is studied intensively and has to pass through rigorous FDA regulations to even make it to the market. If there was any significant link between a GMO and cancer/autism/whatever, the FDA wouldn't approve it and it would be pretty stupid for the company to continue to distribute it.
Another one on there saying that mixing genes from different animals is a load of hooey too. Every living creature is made of the same DNA, and taking DNA from bacteria and putting it into corn isn't going to confuse the corn's genes in the same way that if you copy and paste the word "and" from Mein Kampf in an essay on religious tolerance in a word processor.
I'd really like to see their sources on their information, because some of them are outright lies like the government oversight being lax.
If you haven't noticed yet I'm pretty pro-GMO. I think the anti-GMO movement is really just based in fear-mongering and naturalist bias (i.e. chemicals and science=evil, so chow down on that hemlock, it's all natural). Because of things like strict regulations on the GMOs, it really only allows large corporations to be able to afford to put their products on the market, so there's the factor of disdain towards corporations in the anti-GMO field (Monsanto comes to mind). Really, we've been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years through artificial selection. Without genetic modification, that fruit you're eating would be bitter and full of seeds, your puppy wouldn't be so goddamned adorable, and you'd be chewing on grass when you eat corn with your steak. Science has just come up with ways to speed up the process without the arduous process of continuing to select for ideal traits in artificial selection (and natural selection to a degree, but that doesn't really apply to agriculture).
Here's a good article from an accredited source:
Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked | Popular Science