Let me tell you about my complicated relationship with the gluten aversion diet.
Firstly, I don't mind the so-called "fad diet" of gluten-free eating: it generally means people move away from over-processed foods. It can often (though not always) be a more sustainable diet. There is strength in numbers, and the marketing is good to spread awareness. Since we don't mark gluten well on products, it has forced people to become more knowledgeable of the dreaded ingredients list and what they're actually putting in their bodies.
But, as I said, I have a complicated relationship with it. Foremostly, I don't care what food trend you decide to grab onto: it's your body, and as long as the diet is nutritious, have fun exploring food options. The gluten-free diet, for that reason, is a great option. However, by people, most likely not those living a gluten-free lifestyle, there is currently a really negative association attached to "gluten-free." An example: I mentioned, the other day, that I don't eat gluten. The response was, "Oh, everyone's doing that stupid gluten-free thing." Oh hey, Judge Judy. Let me rephrase that, I can't eat gluten. Even after this correction, I felt dismissed. I usually do when I talk about my once-life-threatening food allergy. If I said, "I can't eat peanuts" or "I can't do milk," I doubt I would have been met (as I routinely am) with "Have you tried bread? You're probably imagining it." However, I knew why I was receiving the reaction. My food choice, necessitated by a medical diagnosis and personal revelation, is "trendy" and representative of upper-middle classers with too much time and money.
Now wait a minute.
Food choice is a privilege. Fair. However, food choice is often representative of a people's health goals for their individual bodies. When those goals are healthy (and this is key), why discourage so-called "food trends"? Because they're "obnoxious" or "difficult"? Well, I think a diet primarily of refined grains and beef is pretty difficult, and worrisome, too. Healthy food lifestyle changes, especially on a massive scale, can be good for everyone: they have a trickle-down effect. Individuals living with access to less resources, including healthy diets, often get more access to both food and food information. Moreover, a wider-number of people-- making fairly radical dietary choices-- become more aware of the lobbies behind food production, and the stuff that is going into their food. A celiac friend recently realized her chicken breast was making her ill-- she researched the company, and realized chicken broth, containing wheat, was injected into the chicken. That says a lot about chicken companies. It says way more than "wheat is the fail-safe flavor additive to make food taste 'better.'" Moreover, it brings up concerns about food labeling (the wheat wasn't labeled). Taste preferences in the US. Company marketing (and, to be sure, the marketing of the gluten-free movement drives me insane). Meat quality in large-scale production plants. This sort of personal research and discovery is important.
In short? Yeah, a lot of people are jumping on the "gluten-free" diet train. And I can get just as annoyed as the most vitriolic of critics. However, I try to check myself (as I try to do whenever I'm making diet judgments). Fad-dieting, especially diets along the lines of the gf diet, represent larger trends in how we think about food. A lot of these trends are positive changes on a regional and/or national level. Moreover, not all those who select a diet do so out of desire to embrace the newest food trend: it's a medical necessity. We need to think about what we put in our mouths. And, in order to do that, we need to be simultaneously more open and critical about "fad diets." Don't brush them aside as silly trends-- find the positive and negative aspects that work within the larger dietary scheme.
