Naturalism is one of my pet hates. The criteria should be 'beneficial for life' or 'toxic'. Is it healthy, it may sound pragmatic but this is not philosophy but medicine, or does it diminish life. Amongst psychedelic users there is endless disagreements about this especially talking about LSD (synthetic) versus psilocybin and DMT. This belief shapes the 'set' of users and confirmation bias kicks in, a 'naturalist' is more likely to have a bad trip, in other words, if they are that fixated.

Cultivated versus wild is another facet of this dichotomy also. Not all cultivated things are good (depending on your metrics quantifying good) and not all wild things are good either - I don't recommend eating Castor Oil Beans for this reason. Ricin is one of the most toxic poisons by weight that we know of, but it is entirely 'natural' in this bean.

Organic/Biological is another facet of this as well. The real reason for using bio farming methods is not because it necessarily produces a healthier product for us, but because you can rule out inadvertent additions of toxic elements commonly found as contaminants in mineral fertilisers and chemicals like antibiotics in animal production, and in many cases, the biological methods make healthier organisms than chemical ones because of things missing from the more synthetic adjuncts to production.