Sensationalist garbage. The vast majority of the article is about stagnating yields and global over-reliance on rice, with two small, uncited, unsupported blurbs in support of the title:

No mere victim of global warming, rice cultivation is also a major cause of it, because paddy fields emit a lot of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

No data to support, no link to relevant studies, not even a real measurement of emitted methane.

EDIT: Okay, there is one additional blurb on the subject, completely detached from the above. Not a lot of cohesion in this piece.

Consequently, rice production is responsible for 12% of total methane emissions—and 1.5% of total greenhouse-gas emissions, comparable to the aviation sector. Vietnam’s paddy fields produce much more carbon equivalent than the country’s transportation.

This seems bad faith to me. Like they needed a data point to support their title and found the most fantastical-sounding one they could think of. But yeah, feeding the majority of the global population is going to leave a footprint. This only makes sense to evaluate in comparison to alternatives, and I think you'd be absolutely hard-pressed to come up with an alternative with fewer ecological consequences.

Rice’s nutritional quality is another growing concern. The grain is high in glucose, which contributes to diabetes and obesity, and low in iron and zinc, two important micronutrients. In South Asia the prevalence of diabetes and malnutrition can be traced to over-reliance on rice.

Absolutely no support for the latter statement.

The title here is pure clickbait and does not belong here.