You're right there. The wheat is likely gmo and covered in glysophate with no nutritional value and the cheese is only slightly better, you might get some calcium out of it. Bon appetit

OK, so I follow this (and your conclusion is probably very correct in this case), but have to push back a little on the reasoning. This argument has always bugged me on a certain level because so much of what we consider "natural" was just genetically modified by the ancients. I can't find my book that specifically credits the Olmecs with breeding what we call "natural" corn today, but this is still an interesting passage.

Anyway, I feel like there's always this weird line drawn when something is chemically altered by a guy in a lab with a notebook trying to use a method to do his best from a guy chemically altering something with the heat from a stove or campfire. One's a science and the other an art, but I don't see why the scientific approach would be necessarily be more unhealthy than the artistic one. I get there might be an incentive issue that is often at play, but just saying something being modified from it's natural state doesn't seem to me to imply a necessary detriment to health.

I also think of Paw Paws that I find when out hiking. I'm technically modifying them (albeit not genetically) when I peel off the skin, but the skin is poisonous and the flesh is nutritious.