Jump to content

Follow Us:  Twitter Facebook RSS Feed            




   arrowShare this page:
   

   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

 
Celiac.com Sponsor:                                    


Photo
- - - - -

Trace Amounts Of Gluten Acceptable


  • Please log in to reply

26 replies to this topic

#1 MichelleC

 
MichelleC

    Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts
 

Posted 02 July 2004 - 04:05 PM

Have any of you read this article: http://www.celiac.co...ml?p_prodid=994

Any opinions, input about the findings?

Thanks,

Michelle
  • 0

Celiac.com Sponsor:

#2 gf4life

 
gf4life

    Our family "photo" as drawn by my daughter Hannah

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
 

Posted 02 July 2004 - 07:34 PM

I read it and I have to say that it makes me very uncomfortable to know that they are saying ANY amount of gluten is "acceptable". It can sometimes take years for the damage to show up on a biopsy. They did not say how long these study participants were consuming the small amounts of gluten and so it is understandable that they would not necessarily show visible damage. I wonder if they also did blood tests to see if their antibody levels were elevated? Or if they checked the biopsy sample on the celllular level to see if their intraepithelial lymphocytes were elevated, indicating a cellular change consistent with lower levels of damage in the intestines.

And if they say 100ppm is an acceptable level, then does that mean companies can say it is gluten free even though it contains a small amount. I know some already do this, but it is not very good for those celiacs who are extremely sensitive! Why do they have to use gluten at all! It isn't like there aren't any acceptable substitutes they can use in food manufacturing.
  • 0
~West Coast-Central California~

Mariann, gluten intolerant and mother of 3 gluten intolerant children

#3 tarnalberry

 
tarnalberry

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,542 posts
 

Posted 02 July 2004 - 08:26 PM

gf4life, I'm with you. Studies like these worry me that companies will be able to label their food gluten free when it's not, in fact, gluten free. And those of us who want to keep as gluten free as it is ever possible to do (which, given that you really don't have to ever eat processed foods, I think is pretty gluten free) will have more trouble with this. I heard that CODEX was a way to make patients more compliant. Perhaps if doctors took the time to help their patients understand how to change their diet, we wouldn't have this problem. They can't do this for peanut allergies (it'd end up killing someone), they shouldn't do it to us.
  • 0
Tiffany aka "Have I Mentioned Chocolate Lately?"
Inconclusive Blood Tests, Positive Dietary Results, No Endoscopy
G.F. - September 2003; C.F. - July 2004
Hiker, Yoga Teacher, Engineer, Painter, Be-er of Me
Bellevue, WA

#4 catfish

 
catfish

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 158 posts
 

Posted 02 July 2004 - 10:04 PM

I think that they need to consider a second label for "low gluten" foods that may fall within these levels, as clearly they shouldn't call it "gluten free" if it isn't...
  • 0

#5 dkmb

 
dkmb

    Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
 

Posted 03 July 2004 - 05:33 AM

By 2008 under the Food Labeling Law (the one in the House now) the FDA is supposed to issue new guidelines for gluten free. I hope that this is not where those guidelines are headed. I agree with all the above replies and think a distinction between gluten free and low gluten is an excellent idea. Even at that late date companies will still have an option to state gluten free or not. :(
DK
  • 0

#6 celiac3270

 
celiac3270

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,263 posts
 

Posted 03 July 2004 - 06:45 AM

I also agree with Mariann (gf4life).......even if they could guarantee that that amount would have no effect on any Celiacs, once you add it up with any trace amounts that you get from other foods or slight contaminations that normally wouldn't affect you....you're getting a significant gluten intake...if they can eliminate enough gluten to label it gluten-free, why can't they just get rid of all of it? :angry:

-celiac3270
  • 0

#7 gf4life

 
gf4life

    Our family "photo" as drawn by my daughter Hannah

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
 

Posted 03 July 2004 - 10:47 AM

I also noticed that they didn't say whether the people in the study experienced any symptoms, only that they didn't appear to have intestinal damage. I don't care how much gluten they say might be safe, I experience symptoms with even the tiniest amount, so that would be enough for me to say no to any product that might contain "acceptable" trace amounts.

Mariann
  • 0
~West Coast-Central California~

Mariann, gluten intolerant and mother of 3 gluten intolerant children

#8 judy04

 
judy04

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts
 

Posted 03 July 2004 - 08:27 PM

Hi,

I also react violently to even the smallest amount of gluten
and I have no damage whatsoever to my small intestine
or the villi, my biopsy came back Neg.The only abnormal
reading was a 74 IgA. After 6 mos of gluten-free and 5 mos
of df eating, it dropped to 35 which is still not normal. My
last 2 gluten accidents took well over a week to get relief
from the pain. I can only imagine if I were a true Celiac! :angry:
  • 0
judy


gluten-free since 11/03, neg biopsy, IGA elevated

#9 debmidge

 
debmidge

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,566 posts
 

Posted 04 July 2004 - 12:26 PM

That is horrible. Husband gets sick from small amounts of cross contam; he needs this in his food like a hole in his shoe! To whom do we state our case against this?
  • 0
Husband has Celiac Disease and
Husband misdiagnosed for 27 yrs -
The misdiagnosis was: IBS or colitis
Mis-diagnosed from 1977 to 2003 by various gastros including one of the largest,
most prestigious medical groups in northern NJ which constantly advertises themselves as
being the "best." This GI told him it was "all in his head."
Serious Depressive state ensued
Finally Diagnosed with celiac disease in 2003
Other food sensitivities: almost all fruits, vegetables, spices, eggs, nuts, yeast, fried foods, roughage, soy.
Needs to gain back at least 25 lbs. of the 40 lbs pounds he lost - lost a great amout of body fat and muscle
Developed neuropathy in 2005
Now has lymphadema 2006
It is my opinion that his subsequent disorders could have been avoided had he been diagnosed sooner by any of the dozen or so doctors he saw between 1977 to 2003

#10 nthei

 
nthei

    Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts
 

Posted 06 July 2004 - 08:36 AM

I hate to say this, perhaps I'm in gloom and doom mode, but I find that you are going to get trace amounts no matter what. I'm sorry that is just the way I feel. I'm NOT saying however, that we should not be diligent. I'M a celiac so I'm not happy about this either. I do my very best and beyond to be strict about what I ingest, but I find it hard to believe that you don't get traces. This is just my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, just how I feel. This is my own paranoa. Everyone be careful! You are all great and we can defeat this.

Have a great day!

Christina
  • 0

#11 kvogt

 
kvogt

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 214 posts
 

Posted 19 July 2004 - 09:02 AM

As I recall, the report said 100 parts per million. That's the equivalent of 3.5 ounces per 2,202.6 pounds of food consumed. Given that is 2-4 years of food for a person, I don't think it's that big.
  • 0

#12 celiac3270

 
celiac3270

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,263 posts
 

Posted 19 July 2004 - 10:19 AM

As I recall, the report said 100 parts per million. That's the equivalent of 3.5 ounces per 2,202.6 pounds of food consumed. Given that is 2-4 years of food for a person, I don't think it's that big.


With that statistic it sounds like less, but any amount being acceptable is still scary.
  • 0

#13 plantime

 
plantime

    My two handsome grandsons

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts
 

Posted 20 July 2004 - 05:40 AM

If it says gluten-free on the label, it should be gluten-free. No parts per million. Anything else is false advertising.
  • 0
Dessa

The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you." Numbers 6:24-25

#14 Guest_shar4_*

 
Guest_shar4_*
  • Guests
 

Posted 04 August 2004 - 08:46 AM

Gluten Free should be GLUTEN FREE, not ALMOST gluten free, I react much more strongly now that I have been gluten-free, and resent getting something that is labelled gluten-free or appears to be gluten-free and then have to pay for it for days and days.
  • 0

#15 travelthomas

 
travelthomas

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 136 posts
 

Posted 04 August 2004 - 10:27 AM

In our society deceit is considered acceptable for the greater good of greed, and until greed is thought of as bad, you will have to deal with deceit and gluten in your processed foods. Every time someone uses deceit to gain anything, this belief gets stronger.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Celiac.com Sponsors: