No. Your excerpt was a poor exposition of the standard precautionary principle I regard as entirely useless.

Reading your link now, I have even less reason to pay attention to it. It's a random press release about a presumably small unreplicated animal study in a species I don't know to be particularly germane to humans (eg. chimps) about changes of unclear importance in a body system with no human analogues ("In birds, switching off GnRH causes the gonads -- testes and ovary -- to shrink as part of the birds' yearly cycle.") with doses potentially high enough to be completely irrelevant to human supplementation (injecting melatonin?). I haven't even read the study!

Combine all the conditionals here (the smallness and lack of replication alone knocks down the chance this means anything about anything to well under 50%), and I don't see why I would update at all (not being an AI or anything which can represent degrees of belief with 64-bit floats).

If anything, I think this sort of study is a good example of why animal studies should be ignored in discussing supplements.