Around 3:25, either I'm missing the point or someone is getting arsenic confused with cyanide. Apricot, peach, cherry and apple pits do contain a small amount of cyanide (as does marzipan cake icing -- it's a large part of the flavour), but I wasn't aware of them being a noticeable source of arsenic.
What follows is a sort of Gish-gallop list of some of the nasties in nature. Of course the naturalistic fallacy is BS, but is this really the way to debunk it?
Rebecca's point about homosexuality seems to be using the naturalistic fallacy to support her own point. Certainly the people against homosexuality are wrong to say it's wrong because it's "not natural" .. but it's not OK because it's "natural" either .. that is Rebecca applying the naturalistic fallacy herself. It's OK because anything consenting adults do that causes no harm to others nor unreasonable harm to themselves is OK. Whether or not dogs, goats or ducks also do it is irrelevant.
Of course lots of things in nature are harmful, but a lot more of them would be armful if we didn't have billions of years of selection to evolve to survive with them. One of the most toxic things nature ever produced was free oxygen in the atmosphere, but almost everything that has evolved since that happened has adapted to use it rather than being killed by it. If we generate new toxic things that don't occur in nature (nuclear waste, for instance) then we have no natural adaptations against them.
That said, I don't give a shit whether or not my shampoo is made from only "natural" ingredients .. and when I see something on a label saying "Free from .." I ask myself: why are they charging me more for a product which has less of something in it?