20 ppm - the "low gluten" $%^&*(*())@+!!! bull pucky manure.
The Mark Basch, gluten glutton (name of blog) writer at the Jacksonville.com link has not been gluten free that long, (since Dec 2010) and hasn't been writing about it that long, and I don't think he's cooked gluten free that much yet, so we get dismissive, simplistic stuff like this -
Guandalini said that "studies have shown quite conclusively" that all celiacs can safely consume up to 10 mg of gluten per day. That means a celiac would have to ingest more than 1.1 pounds daily of foods that contained the maximum of 20 ppm of gluten to potentially damage the intestine, he said.
He also said while all celiacs can consume 10 mg, the majority can consume up to 50 mg of gluten per day, so the majority could eat up to 5.5 pounds a day of those foods before getting sick.
I do not trust anything coming out of the University of Chicago.
You know, and I know, and most of us who really are celiac or gluten intolerant know, somebody or ourselves that have eaten relatively small quantities of gluten contaminated food, sometimes even labeled to that less than 20ppm, and gotten deathly ill on it.
Just like I would not interview just one person for a point of view on a deep topic regarding food safety for millions of patients, and then say, but sure, it's okay,
we can adopt the European standards without researching on whether the Europeans are happy, healthy and well on those standards, because this doctor said so. Author Basch does not even use the word "Codex !"
The FDA News release of 8/2/11 http://www.fda.gov/N...s/ucm265838.htm
says that they are reopening comments on the 2007 proposal.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today reopened the comment period for its 2007 proposal on labeling foods as “gluten-free.” The agency is also making available a safety assessment of exposure to gluten for people with celiac disease (celiac disease) and invites comment on these additional data.
- - -
The proposed rule conforms to the standard set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2008, which requires that foods labeled as “gluten-free” not contain more than 20 ppm gluten. This standard has been adopted in regulations by the 27 countries composing the Commission of European Communities.
Well, just how much of that Codex Alimentarius 2008 are we going to adopt here? The FDA pages I am seeing are not showing that side by side with their page on the 2007 proposal.
Yes, if we are not careful, we are going to have the FDA thinking it is okay to give these food labelers a big loophole, low gluten, and end up with something worse than what we have now, which is sort of random chaos with intervals of voluntary compliance. We could also end up with "gluten free" foods imported from Europe, which are made from highly processed wheat starch. They are also currently, from what I think I am seeing, ignoring oats. No, wait, I found another page that mentions the oats. Some celiac people are sensitive to oats, even supposedly "clean" specially grown oats that are not cross contaminated in the field or by harvest/processing.
No. Not acceptable.
If the food has the gluten-free label on it, it needs to mean something.
But us eaters down here in the trenches need to be able to figure out what FDA means.
I am so annoyed when I react to something that is labeled gluten free here in the U.S. I get neurological symptoms. I have real physical damage from decades of the wrong diet and lack of diagnosis. We exist as between 1% and at least 5% of the current population. There are so many misconceptions out there, I've been reading whacky statements by media medical "experts" that are absolutely infuriating - there is one big time "scientific" troll out there who keeps linking to these articles calling food intolerances "woo - woo science" and has special interest groups calling gluten free a fad and worse.... I have been knocking this sort of thing down for years, and it's worse when you know that the word "science" is being abused and used for "profits and non accountability."
There was at least one fake study in 2010 done with the conclusion that a gluten free diet did not help children on the autism spectrum, which was not done scientifically in a valid manner, and the person doing it, it turned out was working on pharma drugs. Yet the story ran wild over the media. No, gluten free casein free does not "cure" them, but on the other hand, it's already been proven by recent studies published in those science journals that the celiac and type 1 diabetes and autism genes are all interconnected in terms of increased probabilities, and it's not made up nonsense to have parents observing that some of their autistic kids do react poorly to certain foods. Having autism does not mean you can't have a food intolerance, yet the Mayo Clinic online site currently insists this is so, regarding gluten. This is both sad and awful. There were lots of infuriated parents with good science training studying the flaws in the study and complaining about its misleading conclusions, also.
Other times there are people like these "registered dieticians" that just do not seem to comprehend that the cross contamination issue is also driving the increased need for gluten free foods, (want to kiss somebody who just ate wheat? thought not) besides the fact that as the population ages, it becomes more vulnerable to the development of auto immune diseases - but I'm working on it.
There are pressures coming from many different aspects of the political, lobbying, food, science, and medical/pharma communities to have a certain type of gluten free labeling regulation.