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.