I honestly feel that this question was decided long ago when Paul wrote that the Galatians were "bewitched" for thinking that they had to follow the law, including the Jewish dietary practices.
In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Galatians should not be interpreted as speaking against following Christ.
In Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-2 Denis that "works of the law" are part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore that phrase does not refer to obedience to God. In Romans 3:27-31, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works while he said that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-12. To interpret Galatians 3:10-12 as saying that God's instructions are untrustworthy is to interpret it as saying that God is untrustworthy, but rather God is trustworthy and therefore so are His instructions (Psalms 19:7).
Also, Christ declared all foods clean,
In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so he should not be interpreted as turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees as being hypocrites for doing. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so if Jesus had been speaking against obeying God's dietary laws as you suggest, then he would have sinned and therefore disqualified himself as being our Savior. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they teaching against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if Jesus had done that, then according to God we should consider him to be a false prophet. His critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to want to kill him and they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but this incident was not even brought up, and no one reacted as though Jesus had made a radical statement in rebellion against the Father. The topic that they were discussing was whether someone could become common by eating bread with unwashed hands, which had nothing to do with eating unclean animals.
God told Noah that he gave him "everything" to eat,
The word used in Genesis 9:3 refers to prey animals, which are clean animals, while unclean animals are predators and scavengers.
and Peter was given an entire vision in which he was told it was okay to eat unclean things in Acts.
Peter could have obeyed God's commands in the Mosaic Law and His command in his vision by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, so understanding why he refused to do what the Mosaic Law permitted him to do is the key to correctly understanding his vision. It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was command and God did not rebuke Peter for his use of the word "unclean", but only rebuked him for referring to what He has made clean as being "common". In other words, Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that he was not permitted to eat them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.
Not to mention the church's decision not to impose the dietary laws upon Gentile Christians in the same book.
Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of mature Gentile believers or it does not, so it is contradictory to treat it as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow, such as the greatest two commandments, while also treating it as being an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. Furthermore, in Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor and said that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the position that we should obey the greatest two commandments is the position that we should also obey all of the commandments that hang on them. In Acts 15:19-21, it was not given as an exhaustive list for mature believers, but rather as stated it was a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused by saying that they would continue to learn about how to obey Mosaic by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.
As for me, I feel no guilt for the conspicuous amount of ham and pork sausage I have eaten over the years.
If you read a verse and interpret it as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then I see three options:
1.) You can think that you must have misunderstood that verse.
2.) You can deny the truth of that verse.
3.) You can think that it makes perfect sense to interpret servants of God as speaking against obeying Him.
Option #3 is absurd and #2 is not acceptable for those who believe in the truth of the Bible, but the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so #2 is better than #3, but #1 is still the best option if we are to uphold the truth of the Bible.