The jist of the article is that most people are buying gluten free because they think it's healthier, or that it will help them to lose weight (similar to a low-carb diet) -- not because they need to because they have celiac disease or other gluten intolerance.
And this may well be true!
But . . . I have listened to presentations by naturopaths and medical doctors who contend that many people are gluten-intolerant -- without having celiac disease. And others are sensitive or allergic to gluten.
The article also doesn't address a key belief of many who have analyzed gluten intolerance from a dietary standpoint: that the gluten molecule as been "bred" over the years to become larger and larger, hence making it difficult to be as easily digestible as it was, say, in the 1800's. (Remember, I am a layperson -- not a dietician or a doctor -- and so the foregoing is a summary in my own words, of things that I've read or heard over the last few years about gluten.)
Others of us who are living gluten free have reaped a key side benefit of the gluten-free diet: a diet more focused on fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, and lean protein -- a diet less likely to include additives or nutritional fillers of questionable value (exactly why, again, do I need "modified food starch," "mono and di-glycerides, or "artificial colors and flavors" in my ice cream?)
Plus, all the unusual gluten free grains - quinoa, buckwheat, amaranth, garbanzo bean flour, for example -- have great nutritional profiles and add interesting flavors and textures!
This, as all of us know who eat gluten free, is just one example of how eating gluten free can end up being healthier.
Incidentally, the photo appearing above is licensed by Creative Commons; it is totally unrelated to the "Time" article.