As for the criticism of the criticism, I believe it to be likewise disingenuous. To accept Bourdain at face value is to willingly ignore Bourdain’s glaring contradictions. To say “if you haven't read the essays in question, you don't know what those opinions are” is to say that Bourdain has never voiced these opinions previously, which is entirely bogus.
No, it's entirely reasonable, since many of the opinions are revisions of ones expressed in his most popular writings. I would assume that anyone bent toward dismissals of Bourdain will not have followed his every interview and essay and tv appearance. If your ideas about Bourdain come from Kitchen Confidential and The Nasty Bits (as mine have), you'll find different ideas here. Which isn't to suggest you'll like them, just that you don't yet know what they are.
To suggest you can’t criticize Bourdain for these well known opinions is akin to saying someone cannot criticize Obama (or Palin) because they have not read The Audacity of Hope (or whatever the fuck the name of her book is) ...
Straw man argument. Criticize Bourdain all you want. Just don't criticize a book you haven't read.