Yes.
For under the New Covenant, all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For under the New Covenant, no meat is defiled in itself (Romans 14:14), all meats are pure (Romans 14:20). Every meat is good, and no meat is to be refused if it's received with thanksgiving to God, for it's sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Let no one therefore judge you regarding what meat you eat (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For the Kingdom of God doesn't consist of what meat we eat or don't eat, but consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Happy are those Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, who don't condemn themselves over what meat they eat (Romans 14:22). For no meat can defile them (Mark 7:18-19).
There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so we need to be careful not to take something that was only against obeying the laws of men as being against obeying the Laws of God, and there problem here is that you have not been careful to do this.
For example, if you take Colossians 2:16 by itself, it is ambiguous as to whether Paul was saying not to let anyone judge them for keeping God's holy days or for not keeping them, but if we examine the context of views of the people judging them and keep in mind the theme that we must obey God rather than man, then it becomes clear.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
It is incompatible for Paul to described those teaching obedience to the holy, righteous, and good Laws of God as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition. Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example for how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that it is again incompatible for those teaching people to follow Christ's example to be teaching what is not according to Christ. Furthermore, that would pit the Son against the Father, contrary to when Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16). Paul described what these elemental spirits of the world are later in the chapter:
Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
So the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in accordance with God's commands, they were being judged by those teaching human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let any man keep them from obeying God. This segues nicely into 1 Timothy 4:1-8 because those teaching obedience to the holy, righteous and good Laws of God is incompatible with the description of what was being taught, but rather the description is perfectly compatible with the teachings that Paul was arguing against in Colossians. They were teaching asceticism and severity to the body, so they were requiring abstinence from foods that God's Law permitted that were created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4:3). Scripture defines scripture, and according to Psalms 119:142, God's Law is truth, so those who know and believe the truth know that clean foods are to be received with thanksgiving and have been sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, but that unclean animals should not be received with thanksgiving and have not been sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). In other words, Paul was saying that nothing is to be rejected if it is kosher.
In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, it is again keeping in line with theme that we must obey God rather than man. Jesus was asked why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition (Matthew 15:2-3). He went on to say that they made void the Word of God for the sake of their tradition (Matthew 15:6), he said that the worshiped God in vain because they taught as doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and he called them hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God for the sake of their tradition (Mark 7:6-9), so it is again incompatible to interpret Jesus as hypocritically setting aside the commands of God just a few verses later. The issue was a man-made ritual purity law that said that if something clean came in contact with something that was unclean, then it would become defiled/common/ritually unclean (Mark 7:3-4), so in context they were saying that you could become defiled by eating kosher food with unwashed hands and he was simply starting the opposite and that their emphasis on ritual purity was out of balance with their emphasis on moral purity. His statement at the end of the conversation in in Matthew 15:20 confirms that he was still talking about the issue of whether you could become defiled by eating kosher food with unwashed hands and never jumped topics to God's dietary laws.
The word used in Mark 7:19 for saying that all foods are clean is only used in the context of ritual purity, and never in regard to God's dietary laws, so at most it was saying that all foods are ritually clean. Furthermore, the things that are considered to be food varies from culture to culture, where some people consider things to be food that we would never consider eating. So when you have one Jew speaking to other Jews about food, the only thing that is coming to their minds are the things that God said were food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, and we take what was being said out of context if we insert the things that we consider to be food. So Mark 7:18-19 is saying that all kosher foods are ritually clean, which was directly counter to the Pharisees who were saying that kosher animals could become ritually unclean.
The topic of Romans 14 is in the first verse, namely it was in regard to handling disputes of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow His commands. So they might dispute what counts as idolatry, such as whether it was idolatry to eat meat at a community meal when it is unknown whether it had been sacrificed to idols, but they were not disputing whether to obey God's command against committing idolatry. Those who then chose to eat only vegetables were judging those who ate everything, and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:2-3). So some people were of the opinion that food that was kosher had become ritually impure and Paul stated that nothing was ritually impure in itself (Romans 14:14, Romans 14:20), so he was arguing against obeying the opinions of man, not against obeying the commands of our God.
It's sometimes claimed we shouldn't eat animals which were "unclean" under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Leviticus 11) because they're detrimental to health. But where does it say they were "unclean" because they're detrimental to health? Even pork isn't detrimental to health when it's cooked properly. That's why there are so many healthy old people in China, a nation which thrives on properly-cooked pork. So the dietary restrictions of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law weren't for health purposes, but must have been symbolic, just as, for example, Acts 10:11-15 wasn't for health purposes, but was symbolic (Acts 10:28), and just as the clothing restrictions and hair-cutting restrictions of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law weren't for health purposes, but must have been symbolic.
There are night and day differences in the healthiness between eating clean and unclean animals and there are many diseases that have been transferred to humans through eating unclean animals, so is is certainly reasonable to think that has something to do with it, however, the dietary laws are part of God's instructions for how to do what is holy because he is holy, it is about much more than health concerns. Paul said that the Law was spiritual (Romans 7:14), so it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principle of which the Laws are just examples, but if you say that you understand those principles so you don't need to live according to examples of those principles, then you have not actually understood those principles. With Jewish methods of interpretation, commands always had the literal straightforward meaning and no command had a purely symbolic meaning that exempted you from obeying the literal command.
In Acts 10:11-15, it says that all kinds of animals had been let down in his vision, so why didn't Peter simply obey the command to kill and eat by killing and eating one of the clean animals? Why did he object to to doing what the Law permitted him to do? The issue again was a man-made ritual purity law that said that a clean animal that come into contact with something unclean became common (Mark 7:3-4), so all of the clean animals in his vision had become common, and by saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, he was saying that he had never broken that man-made ritual purity or God's dietary Law, and by refusing to eat a clean animal as God had instructed, he was disobeying God to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke him for referring to clean animals as clean, but to referring to clean animals as common, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in the status of unclean animals. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to the status of Gentiles and not once did he say anything about God's Laws being done away with. If he had done so, then they would not have accepted what he said because they would have known that he was not speaking for God (Deuteronomy 13:4-5).
For people can live long and healthy lives wearing clothing made of mixed fibers (such as cotton/nylon blends), even though this goes against the letter of Deuteronomy 22:11. And people can live long and healthy lives without having to sew tassels and a blue ribbon along the edges of all their clothes, even though this goes against the letter of Numbers 15:38. And people can live long and healthy lives without having to wear only white clothing, and without having to cover their hair with oil, even though this goes against the letter of Ecclesiastes 9:8. And people can live long and healthy lives shaving the sides of their heads and beards, even though this goes against the letter of Leviticus 19:27.
It is not good to mistake the mercy of God as permission.
The idea of "clean" and "unclean" in the Old Testament wasn't derived from whether or not something was to be eaten. For people and inedible objects could also be "clean" or "unclean" (Leviticus 11:24-40). Instead, it was derived from whether or not something (whether human, animal, or object) was considered by God in Old Testament times to be holy/not guilty or unholy/guilty (Leviticus 11:43-47, Leviticus 5:2b-3, Leviticus 10:10).
Also, someone was made "unclean" simply by touching something "unclean" (Leviticus 11:26). They didn't have to eat it.
The concept of animals being clean and unclean uses a different word and is completely different from the concept of ritual purity where people and objects can be ritually pure and impure. People and objects went through regular cycles of becoming ritually impure and ritually pure, and it was not a sin to become ritually impure, but animals did not go through cycles of becoming clean and unclean, and it is a sin to eat an unclean animal.