In VERY recent history, a change in Lobotomy Law from 1993 coupled with changes to the DSM-5 definition of "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Refractory" led to a surprisingly large number of medical and psychiatric professionals believing that Lobotomy had been effectively legalized for use on things like so-called "Orthorexia Nervosa" or even "Intransigence" aka, argueing stubbornly with your psychotherapist. This has led to unfortunate people being given ambush lobotomies without their knowledge and consent. Though such remain class 1 felonies, they remain routinely practiced because lobotomized patients virtually never realize their debility and therefore never report it. It is a common felony of virtually zero risk among populations with EXTREMELY high rates of character disorders : doctors and psychiatric professionals. Any person who may previously have been considered to be in normal range of behavior might suddenly find themselves virtually brain dead and disabled for life owing to hyperdiagnosis of something like "Orthorexia Nervosa" or "Health Food Addiction" having been used as an excuse for the administration of "therapeutic" lobotomy by persons such as the Administrative Executive of the DSM-4 project, who, upon seeing the re-appli action of "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Refractory" to a number of normal or nearly normal behaviors in the DSM -5 declared "The lobotomy is back!"[actually, changing the DSM changes the laws applicability not one whit, but borderlines with the DESIRE to lobotomize might convince themselves otherwise, brackets mine] "I'm so glad! It's the best treatment there is... the only one I would ever want to use!"
I submit that "Orthorexia Nervosa" is an invitation to overdiagnose, misdiagnose and lobotomize that is in itself much more dangerous to patients and society at large than the relatively small chance one might give oneself severe malnutrition.
This is a ridiculous diagnosis of an imaginary disorder. People are trying to look out for their health and there is so little science backing up the healthfulness of dietary choices that they end up with weird ideas. Here's an example: the article cites "dairy" as a necessary food group that people shun. Is cow mild designed for human consumption in nature? Does any species drink the milk of another species? Do adults of the same species drink milk? Where is the science backing up the claim that dairy is a necessary food? The solution is to prove dietary choices with science and educate people that are hurting themselves in proper nutrition. End of story. "Modern psychology" is attempting to legitimize itself by pointing at social abnormalities and giving it an exotic latin name. Nothing more.
Some experts say orthorexia falls under the umbrella of other mental health diagnoses. Really? DSM offers the following diagnosis: 307.50 Eating disorder not otherwise specified. If the diagnosis is found to be reasonably common, it'll get its own entry in the next DSM.