That is a great comment. Not because it raises a valid point but because it is a great example of stringing irrelevant pieces together and pretending there is a valid point.

Starts off by digging back 90 years to pick an example that just barely applies and treating it as if it were a normal thing. Then disparages a fairly rare option while condescending about the recongizeability of foods available now.

All of this while deftly ignoring the original point of the comment it's responding to to dispute its validity without addressing it.

The variability of food over the last century has no bearing on whether you should eat foods you recognize or the adviseability of eating the type of 'food' described in the article.