Is the concept of "unnatural" or "synthetic" just social construction, and no more than an elusion?

We as humans are a natural beings on this earth, and in this life. We have used our natural abilities to aid our pursuit of our basic necessities like food, water, and shelter. We have enhanced our capabilities to produce and deliver our basic necessities. What part of this pursuit for our basic necessities that we have enhanced with our natural capabilities is, or has become "unnatural", and what about it is unnatural?    

There's no such thing as wild corn because it is an entirely man made plant like much of our produce is. It's been so genetically altered from many thousands of years of farming that it no longer resembles anything like the original plant corn was derived from (assuming that original plant even still exists). It is said that 80% (or so) of our produce has been altered by the existence of many thousands of years of human farming. Even from the time when Jesus walked the earth and up to this point in time, our food, including meat, has been genetically altered because of thousands of years of farming, so our food is genetically different than the food that was eaten at the infancy of Christianity. We cannot help but genetically alter our food. Even if we went back to being a hunter gatherer society, we would still be genetically altering our food sources. This happens in every hunter vs predator environment which we all live in.       

1.If you consider everything that is somehow influenced by human existence to be unnatural, then to you, everything we do as humans is unnatural. So no matter what, if we have the capability to do it, including reaching mars or clipping our toenails, it's unnatural if humans manipulate something in some manner.  

2.If you believe nothing we do to be unnatural, then there is no such thing as unnatural to you. All is natural. 


3?If you believe some things, but not other things are unnatural, ..................then why??????

When we think about it, 1 and 2 are really the same thing, it's only based on two possibilities based on ones "perspective". In other words, based on their opinion.    

Unnatural is really an all or nothing concept where it's only logical to assume everything we do as being unnatural, or everything we do as natural. But for some reason, most people do not accept either logical conclusion of the concept of "synthetic" vs "natural" and instead embrace an illogical concept of some things being natural while others are not. But can we logically validate the concept of cherrypicking which things are "natural" while others are not?   

Can you prove the concept of natural vs synthetic is more than an elusion of social construction?