The perception that there is is a popular argument of people who want to argue Christians are still required to follow the Dietary Laws. And generally conceded by Christians who don't just so they can say "isn't the Bible's scientific knowledge awesome!". And the latter fits my own personal bias.
And it's easy to make it seem that way when you single out Pigs/Swine/Pork among all Unclean animals. And singling them out became popular during the Inter-testamental period. But The Bible doesn't support it, neither Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14 lists pigs first when giving examples of unclean land mammals. And they're by definition not the most unclean since they do fit one of the two requirements, but failing to have either is enough to be unclean. And the story about Antiochus Epiphanes offering a Pig on the Altar is not in 1st or 2nd Maccabees, it shows up by Josephus giving it more antiquity then the Menorah legend, but Josephus was not above referring to urban legends as if they were facts.
But the thing is the Hare is one of the unclean animals listed before Pigs. And Rabbit meat is considered healthy to eat. My searches on the subject found the only disparaging thing said about it being that it's to lean to live off only Rabbit meat for very long.
Now there is some dispute about if Arnebeth being translated Hare is accurate, but Rabbits and Hares definitely fit the definition of chewing the Cud but not being Cloven Hoofed, no matter what a skeptic may try to tell you.
I could see the logic in Chewing the Cud having a correlation to being healthy or not, but I don't see how having Cloven Hoofs could mean anything in that department.
Meanwhile there are NO restrictions on eating plant life. It's not just that the Torah never takes the time to forbid any, Yahuah specifically said all plant life we are allowed to consume, (including the ones used to make illegal narcotics). Yet some are poisonous, like poison ivy.
You know what's interesting, Humans fit neither requirement for being clean, I wonder if that might be significant?