The tone is mostly befitting to the article. The small script extract is a bit random, and might be frowned upon by some users who don't like changes in style very much. I'm part of the minority which doesn't care, however. That part would be upto you if you wanted to keep it, or reword it into normal prose, although this would lose most of it's comedic value as the humour's in the dialogue.
Capitalisation needs sorting on the quotes, as they looks quite amateurish, like an IP half assedly put them there. Sort it out on the pictures, as well.
You might want to put "in an attempt" in the first sentence, rather than "as an attempt". Add a comma too.
It should be "were" on the second paragraph.
You should really make it clear that health foods often taste bad, even though they are good for you. This makes the humour more clear when you say that despite it tasting like my mum's cooking (bad), it is not good for you. Reading the sentence as it is, I'm naturally assuming that Good taste = Good for you, Bad Taste = Bad for you
You might want to say "nobler cause" rather than "more noble cause".
"After perfecting a cure for cancer," maybe?
The whole, chemicals mixing together accident section, is a bit wordy, but the Jury's out on this one. Keep it, or split it in two with a full stop. Whatever...
On the "Actual Creation" section, the introductory sentence doesn't make full sense. Who realised? Why would the officials care that their parents didn't believe them. Its almost like an abbott and costello sketch, but without the humour.
On the dialogue section, you might want to bolden their names, and possibly indent the whole thing to set it apart from the rest of the section.
On the Rocket section, the -example- are a bit overused. Perhaps commas would suffice?
It's okay I guess... I think I covered major formatting in the grammar.
It's a bit here, there, everywhere.