I wouldn't go as far as you Primrose, and ignore everything. Nutritional science is a very young science, they are about where other sciences were in the mid 19th century, so they are finding their way and each new trend has something to offer to our overall knowledge of nutrition,but there is a tendency to see every new insight as the euteka moment that will solve all society's ills.
As I mentioned, I am reading van Tulliken's book and I understand what he is saying and can see that all these denatured ingredients and chemicals may be doing harm to our bodies, but he writes as if for him, this discovery is the eureka moment that will solve all society's ills, and this I really do not buy.
His conviction that people are addicted to food and eating these products because they are designed to appeal and they cannot resist, quite frankly is bunkum.
Over the last four or more decades I have found at various times I have begun to not enjoy foodstuffs I used to enjoy, bread was the first, meat, biscuits and looking back, after chance encounters, with pre industrial style food - bread from a traditional baker, meat from an organic farmer, I have thought about it and found in each case, my distaste for foods I had previously enjoyed, dates back to when, for example, the new 'Chorleywood process' for baking bread came in - adding chemicals to shorten the proving time and then steam cooking. My disinterest in meat becgan when industrial production of beef, which required feeding them maize, soya, and rape, with growth promoters started.
I am sure these I am not the only one who reacted like this to these changes, so the idea that we as a society are addicted to them is hard to take and his own addictive need for them in the experiment he underwent to write the book, sounds more as if he has an addictive personality, than that society has one.