I'm going to put this in the nicest way possible- that article is a load of crud. Notice the complete and utter lack of any supporting evidence? It's one of those "Gladwell-esque just right" stories we like to tell ourselves. "Oh look, it feels right, so it must be right." But it's not.
That's not too say that there aren't underlying coding issues in society- and people that will attack based on them; one of the most famous and easy to identify is how disco was attacked by "rock fans," not because it was bad, or because it was unpopular- but because it was transgressive and explicitly dominated by queer and POC.
Here, though, that is just incorrect. It is true that "men's issues" in the food world are taken more seriously- despite the prominence of women in most areas of cooking overall, it is hardly shocking that male chefs dominate the upper echelons of the profession.
That said, the waves of popularity of food do not have the same issues. For example- the whole wave of cupcake mania? The rise and fall of it wasn't coded in any way. Same with microbrews - an aggressively male area to begin with that was also mercilessly mocked for a while (pretentious, etc.).
Pretty much all of the examples used in this article are nothing more than branding exercises. Not coding- not belittling, but almost always trying to expand brands; often in unintentionally hilarious fashion (biohack is going to age as well, most likely, as extreme did).
Most products would KILL for the massive popularity and category-creep of pumpkin spice. In order to have backlash, you have to be popular. This isn't about coding, and I am quite sure that the fans of pumpkin spice can defend themselves and their tastes ... as they have in this thread.