So? An equivalent line in such an article might say "Anti-vaxxers claim that vaccines contain poisonous amounts of the chemical mercury" then if we continue analogizing it to the article at hand, the NYT would go on to show how the amount is in fact not dangerous (like they've actually done).

It doesn't change the fact that they said it. You have to report on the facts, and the fact is they said it contains a dangerous amount. The report can then go on to show how that's a false premise, but newspaper writing purposely doesn't make bold claims like "ANTI-VAXXERS LIE ABOUT POISONOUS AMOUNTS OF MERCURY IN VACCINES" because people call that sensationalist and biased.

They assume their readers are smart enough to connect the dots. If the writer's intentions were truly "sinister" as you say, then they would manipulate the facts into an argument that supported the idea that vaccines have a dangerous amount.

The analogy also fails because it truly is a fact that this would increase the amount of pesticides used. Whether that is a bad thing or not is entirely up to the readers to decide.

Again you just seem to be spinning some narrative about the NYT having malicious intent here (especially by analogizing it to vaccines) without anything but a sly deferral to "poor writing". It's just an excuse for you and others to confirm your dislike of the NYT when they're writing in the same style every newspaper reporter is taught.