[beeforpork]

Did anyone else find it wrong that trends like fat-free, lots-of-fat, keto, proteins, sugar-free, low-carb are put in the same category as trends like GMO-free, organic, natural, clean? Lack of differentiation in this regard unmasks the article as opinionated and over-generalizing in a way that I have to ignore it, I think.

Sure, some market dynamics may be similar, and all are probably luxury topics, but the underlying intent and motivation of customers is completely different. The article's main point is to criticise blindly following bogus and unscientific health trends. But this is not really justified for decisions to avoid dirt, food additives, and optimised and exploitive farming methods.

[estimator7292]

Yeah, a "natural" or "clean" diet sounds precisely as well-reasoned and effective as a "paleo" diet.

[beeforpork]

Fair enough. :-)

[phil21]

GMO free is anti-scientific. At least a ton of overlap between those who pursue it and also have a whole lot of other woo-woo food related eccentricities. A rounding error of people against it when you talk to them will bring up "big ag" monopolies/etc. which are legitimate concerns vs. various vague health concerns from eating it.

Organic I suppose is borderline. My parents were in this space as farmers, and the commercial scale operations putting the "certified organic" labels on mass produced food would be largely indistinguishable from the farm or large ag business next door. It devolved into a near-meaningless label to me seeing how it's been completely gamed to the point of being meaningless.

I put all this stuff - including the fad diets - somewhere on the "started from a kernel of truth and descended into crazy" spectrum.

[beeforpork]

This makes me sad, because you are probably right. It's not the day for brightening my worldview.

[burnt-resistor]

The dietary equivalent of syncretism nonsense.