For a philosopher, there are millenia of debates behind him or her regarding what "meaning", "interpretation", "truth", "information" etc. actually are. Much of those debates is very interesting, for example in the 20th century a flaw was found in a 2500 year old definition of "truth".
So when the same word, "information" or "interpret", is used both by scientists in biology as well as by philosophers, it can lead to confusion. I am not saying that the philosophers are clearly the confused ones, in fact many of them are not. Their claim is a more subtle one - that the potential confusion affects scientists. In other words, that while it is clear what "DNA being interpreted" means when a scientist really thinks about it, the fact is that often scientists do not think carefully and rely on intuition, and are led astray by such metaphors.
In other words, the better philosophers are saying that some scientists are making the mistake that the worse philosophers are. As the saying goes, all scientists are armchair philosophers.
How much of an issue is this in practice? I would say little. It's interesting to philosphers, but not that much to scientists. Yes, epigenetics were only appreciated recently, but I doubt it's due to a philosophical misunderstanding. The simple fact is, the discovery of DNA was like the discovery of Newton's laws of physics - suddenly, there was a clear and powerful framework that explained massive amounts of observations coherently. Such frameworks do lead people to focus on them and to look less at alternative explanations. It took a while for physics to get past Newtonian gravity, and for biology to get past a strict understanding of DNA, because those theories are so good. That's how science has to work - when you have a great theory, you have to use it to the limit. When it stops working, that's when you start to consider alternative theories, not before.