Were Old Testament Food Laws Done Away in Acts 10?

Acts 10 is About The Baptism of Uncircumcised Gentiles - Not Clean & Unclean Meats

To imply though that the "eat the meat in the sheet" vision gave any part of the first century church (Jewish or Gentile) license to eat unclean meats is grossly misleading.

Peter said he had never eaten anything unclean and wasn't about to start, despite this being many years after Christ's sacrifice.

In fact he doesn’t consider for a minute that God might be changing the dietary laws given recorded at the time of Noah (Genesis 7:2-3) and reiterated in (Leviticus 11).

Moreover, when we understand just how much of the New Testament is taken up with explaining the controversy caused by the baptism of non-circumcised gentiles (in Galatians, Romans 2, 3, & 4; Acts 15, Acts 21 to Acts 24: etc.) we see that the change of one law Exodus 12:48 created massive controversy for the New Testament church.

So if other aspects of the written Torah had been overturned by God, as some would have us believe, then why isn't the New Testament twice as thick as it currently is?

Are we seriously expected to believe that having been enslaved by the Babylonians for not respecting God's written Torah, then having made various "additions and traditions" to it known as the Oral Torah, which developed into the pervading culture of Pharisaic legalism, and ultimately was codified into the Talmud, that first century Jewish Christians were prepared to just ditch the first five books of the God's law without it creating a massive theological controversy?

We don't think so.

Next: Acts 15 - The Debate About Gentile Non-Circumcision at the Jerusalem Conference

Why do many christian theologians believe even after the crucifixion that Paul kept Nazirite vows and offered sacrifices at the temple, so is the written Torah law really "done away" in Galatians?