> there's basically zero evidence organic or gluten free are "healthier".

Depends on your definition of "organic". The US legal definition? True.

The Demeter/Bioland/Naturland definition? Untrue. For example, they have far lower limits for antibiotics, and require more time for farm animals outside, on actual grass. Larger spaces for the animals is required, too.

As a result, your meat will have higher quality, and you reduce antibiotics overuse.

One could also make the argument that stricter regulations of pesticides/herbicides, or entirely banning them (as one of the mentioned groups requires), also reduces the amount of them left in the final product - as, in contrast to governmental inspections, these private groups inspect a lot more often, which helps ensure you don't end up buying a product with pesticide rates an order of magnitude over the legal limits.

Regarding gluten free: That's for most people not helpful, but it helps people with celiac disease

Gluten free is often a useful proxy (for the most parts of the world) for less processed foods. Doesn't apply to speciality "gluten free" items but chicken and rice and vegetables are also gluten free. Try it out when flying sometimes.

If you have celiac disease, there is 100% evidence that gluten free is healthier.

And people with celiac are benefiting enormously by the generic diet trend of eating low gluten/gluten free by the masses who have nothing wrong with them.

A quick google search shows 86% of people who are think they're gluten sensitive, aren't. That's nearly 90% of the stuff in the "gluten free" section of your grocery that's being bought by people who are just wrong.

So for 9/10 people buying gluten free food thinking it's healthier, there is no evidence. lintiness is speaking to that.

It being a spectrum disease, I'm rather mystified how someone thinks they're sensitive but someone else can declare they aren't. I mean from the outside looking in, the label matters to the outsiders, but from the inside looking out, the exploding bowels seem a far higher priority than label achievements.

In my extensive experience with GF food if its naturally inherently GF its delicious, like a grilled steak or a fresh salad. I am hungry right now and I'm salivating eyeing a granny smith apple up and down right now, it is going to be so tart and juicy... If its artificially GF like a GF chocolate cake, its freaking disgusting like mashed potatoes mixed with shredded coconut levels of disgusting. The true irony of the "gluten free" aisle is its mostly inedible and the real "GF" aisles are the long existing produce and meat aisles. Aka the stuff that was "food" before there were food factories trying to convince us something more profitable is "food".

Eating a gluten free diet often means avoiding junk foods such as bread, pasta, etc. So those people might be wrong in that they aren't gluten sensitive, but they're probably right that their diet improved their health.

Wouldn't, say, a Paleo or Atkins diet be even better for them if bread & pasta were the source of their problems?

Atkins no, Paleo yes.

> If you have celiac disease,

Having a specific disease or intolerance doesn't mean anything about the general healthiness of a food.

By your logic, if some people are lactose intolerant, then all lactose is unhealthy.

if you're allergic to pineapple, then not eating pineapples is healthier, but it says fuckall about the general "health" attributes of the "diet".

If you're allergic to peanuts, then there is 100% evidence that eating a burger is healthier.