This is an old post, but I thought I'd respond since it was bumped.
ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:And to be honest, no, I don't like Greger. The same way I don't like AuthorityNutrition, or NaturalNews, or PETA, or any group that has legitimate reason to lie about, miscontrue, or ignore facts in order to fit their beliefs.
I don't like seeing those compared, and I hope you'll look more into the nuances between them and the motivations.
Greger changes his stance when studies come up, reincluding or excluding things from his diet based on research.
He has also made video(s) on how to prepare meat to be less carcinogenic.
Greger deals mainly with ideal or optimal nutrition, and not adequate nutrition, and has a hard time understanding how badly some people eat or want to eat (and how people value taste and convenience).
The thing I disagree with him about most is supplementation; he strongly advocates only supplementing B-12, and otherwise eating huge quantities of dark leafy green veggies. While this could work, and is probably the healthiest diet, this isn't a very practical recommendation for most people, and Greger doesn't understand that well.
His issue is practicality, and failing to give clearer advice. He just retorts with his catch phrase "Just eat your veggies" (and take B-12)
when presented with questions of adequate nutrition.
His worst single video was the one he did on artificial sweeteners. He doesn't understand the benefit of culinary sweetness in the cost-benefit analysis, so he considers any potential dangers (however remote) a reason not to eat them. His reasoning wasn't explained well in that video, but he has elsewhere.
Anyway, my point is that Greger does use research and explain his reasoning. You just have to follow his links, and if you don't like the reasons he gives for something, it's right there.
AuthorityNutrition and NaturalNews are more comparable, in that they're loaded with terrible pseudoscience (something Greger has spoken out against, even when the pseudoscience is in favor of some vegan position).
PETA is different, as a large organization with a variety of opinions and branches of outreach, and not really devoted to nutrition information. PETA is political, not a nutrition group so I'm not sure what you're reading there.