I can't tell if it's a feature or a flaw of academia that some topics can so be thoroughly proven/disproven, and yet so many researchers continue to devote their careers to it. Should more effort be given to enforcing existing knowledge and consensus, or is preserving intellectual freedom more important? Granted, I understand Blue Zone stuff is mostly due to marketing incentives...
I can't tell if you think academia is "enforcing existing knowledge and consensus" or "preserving intellectual freedom"...
My personal take is that academia is doing very well on the former, and not much on the latter.
It seems like Buettner in particular had a bunch of for-profit business ventures tied up in blue zone marketing bullshit, so that is a sort of non-academic motivation to keep the music going.