Get email alerts Get Celiac.com E-mail Alerts  




Celiac.com Sponsor:
Celiac.com Sponsor:




Ads by Google:






   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

What Do You Think Of This Article Saying Celiacs Can Consume Gluten?
0

15 posts in this topic

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/455301/mark-basch/2011-08-09/researcher-says-proposed-gluten-free-standards-are-sound

Doesn't this just sound wrong? Everything I've read and researched seems to say you can't have any gluten what so ever if you are celiac. The leading dr at University of Chicago Celiac Disease Center says celiacs can have up to 10 mg of gluten a day safely. It doesn't come across as correct for everyone.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ads by Google:

I think it would be confusing for some. I think the point of the article is that if the Dr's are saying 20 ppm is okay, that the person writing the article is fine with the new FDA proposal.

I do not think they are suggesting going out and eating 1.2 lbs of "gluten-free but 20 ppm" foods.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the studies, but the concept is valid.

Let's assume the limit is 20 ppm. Now that does NOT mean that the product will actually contain 20 ppm--it just sets a bar that can be tested for. Content levels far less than 20 ppm are, well, less than 20 ppm.

Parts per million is only half the story. As noted, it also matters how much of the food you consume. Ten grams of food at 20 ppm is the same amount of gluten as 40 grams at 5 ppm.

So what Dr. Stefano Guandalini is saying is that in the worst case, where all the gluten-free food you eat is right at the 20 ppm limit, you would have to eat at least 500 grams (1.1 pounds) of it before it became problematic.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not diagnosed as celiac but have found that I have greatly improved my health by going gluten free. Everything from my fatigue to the dizziness and brain fog I was suffering from has disappeared. 4 weeks ago I could hardly get out of bed and if I wanted to mow my back garden it would take me 4 days (and my garden is not that big) because I would have to keep stopping due to feeling ill. However recently I managed both back and front in the same day and had energy left over to trim the hedge. Its strange as I am not used to feeling this well. I have felt like death warmed up for years, which my drs kept putting down to anxiety and depression. Therapy and meds did nothing to help though.

Now, I am still not quite 100% but each I day I feel a bit better. I almost feel 18 again in some ways.

However if I eat even small amounts of wheat or gluten I will start to see the return of some of the symptoms that now seem to have vanished. So I would rather not expose myself to any gluten at all!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be confusing for some. I think the point of the article is that if the Dr's are saying 20 ppm is okay, that the person writing the article is fine with the new FDA proposal.

I do not think they are suggesting going out and eating 1.2 lbs of "gluten-free but 20 ppm" foods.

You are so right....I was really actually reading it wrong. I guess most people would read it like I did though. Very misleading the way it was explained. :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




i wish they would not say stuff like that. i find such "research" highly questionable. it makes people think it is not a big deal and so they can do more damage to their bodies. when cc can be such a problem i find it really hard to believe any amount of gluten is ok let alone a substantial ppm of gluten. i think the labeling needs to say how much ppm of gluten there is in it. and only truly gluten-free food should be allowed the label to me if it has #ppm then that is not gluten-free. to be gluten-free needs to be naturally gluten-free foods.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Peter & the poster before me....even 20ppm which is just a guideline can send many to the ER indistress... With all the research it still is just research at this point... For me this lifestyle has changed my health issues so much I can't fore see ever eating gluten againin my life even with the magic pill...Our food supply has become so genetically altered that I feel more problems from this unfood( chemical food) will be on the rise from eating this...

Call me silly...... SIlly Yak that is!!!!!

blessings

mamaw

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly the reason that I am AGAINST the Coeliac Society of Australia! :angry:

They are planning to change the legislation in Australia so that 20ppm is allowed in our food. The ACCC to date have refused to take their request on board, thank goodness :P

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is about the effects of gluten on the small intestine, not about the other symptoms that can accompany eating gluten.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is about the effects of gluten on the small intestine, not about the other symptoms that can accompany eating gluten.

Yes, but that doesn't help us as consumers trying to find food that doesn't make us feel ill. Just be sure to write the FDA if 20 ppm food makes you sick.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it might be helpful if the FDA illustrated exactly what 20ppm looks like, so consumers will know what a "safe" portion size of gluten looks like. I'm guessing it's quite small.

Even so, I do think that article just confuses the matter for a lot of people. I have a friend whose doctor told her she has a "mild reaction" to gluten, (ie: no painful intestinal problems) my friend took that to mean that she has a "mild form of the disease" so she freely eats gluteny foods until she feels ill. :huh: I've tried more than once to explain to her that Celiac is Celiac, you either have it or you don't, and you'd stop feeling ill altogether if you just go entirely gluten free.

The disease is difficult enough as it is, without confusing and conflicting information coming from "experts".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I critiqued the article earlier in the publications section.

I started something a bit more incendiary here, but decided not to hit "post."

This is a terrible, flippant article, ("one researchers says.... " is not good sourcing) and I disagree with the theme and conclusion.

The person who wrote it is a business writer and a newly diagnosed celiac, < less than a year, he has done only some reviews of gluten free goods and restaurants. The objective of a business writer for mainstream media these days in states like Florida is to promo stuff for investors.

The researchers at these Universities want money to run their various programs.

Now, the details are, if you read the fine print at FDA, that these are proposed rules that might be instituted by the year 2012. which just happens to be an election year.

Take it with a grain of salt, I certainly am, they've been studying this for years and they think they're doing us a big, fat favor if they work the rules so we potentially get to have more so - called "gluten - free" labeled food imported from Europe, which actually contains processed wheat starch. The writer did not mention "Codex" standards, or go into the details of what Europe does and why he thinks that is appropriate.

Read the research literature, a lot of celiacs in Britain are not doing as well as could be expected on a gluten free diet.

This is the same government which decided to re work the standards for the school lunch program, and signed off on a bill from Congress, so it actually contains MORE USDA GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED GRAIN requirements, more grain servings, and less other starch sources such as from potatos and beans. What is the actual result of such a thing ? A bigger subsidy for gmo's, bigger research $ for Monsanto, and more gluten in your school kids' diet, when we actually have an increasing number of people developing celiac and gluten intolerance.

So we ended up going backwards under the guise of "better nutrition" again.

We need to emphasize that whenever wheat, rye, barley are actually IN THE INGREDIENTS of a product, they MUST BE called out on the label, or these new standards are meaningless.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that doesn't help us as consumers trying to find food that doesn't make us feel ill. Just be sure to write the FDA if 20 ppm food makes you sick.

Yes, but my point is to the OP who says the article sounds wrong.

It's not about feeling sick, it's about damage to the small intestine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but my point is to the OP who says the article sounds wrong.

It's not about feeling sick, it's about damage to the small intestine.

True, and the research that most celiacs can eat 20 ppm food without damage on current tests is reasonably convincing. I'd be more convinced if it didn't make me sick, though. It's hard to believe food that makes you feel sick isn't doing damage on some level. Microscopic examination of villi and looking for so many autoimmune antibodies that they're out in the blood is a horribly crude way of testing for autoimmunity. I want to know what we're failing to measure by using inadequate diagnostic tests.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.