OK, the idea that "it is 'natural,' therefore it is good" is so easy to dispell with common examples in pretty much everybody's experience (poison ivy? Natural, but not good. Arsenic? Natural, but not good.) that it is surprising to see the "appeal to nature" fallacy trotted out every time somebody thinks they can get some milage out of it.

Here's an entertaining explanation of the fallacy, in the interests of public education in the interests of the public good:

Natural, shmatural: Mother Nature might be lovely, but moral she is not. She doesn’t love us or want what’s best for us

From the article:

... Soon enough, Eve is examining the bread, turning it in her long, calloused fingers. Her inner goddess whispers that something is not right. But it is so like ‘real’ food! Curiosity overcomes her and she takes that first bite and, as she does so, her DNA unravels, then tangles and sproings up like when you run a scissor blade over a Christmas ribbon to make it super sproingy. Her animal friends run away; they no longer recognise her as one of them. She looks no different yet she is changed deep inside. Her cycles no longer sync with the Moon, Gaia will not return her calls, and she’s pretty sure she has a peanut allergy.