• Join our community!

    Do you have questions about celiac disease or the gluten-free diet?

  • Ads by Google:
     




    Get email alerts Subscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter

    Ads by Google:



       Get email alertsSubscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter

  • Member Statistics

    72,100
    Total Members
    3,093
    Most Online
    lololwe652
    Newest Member
    lololwe652
    Joined
  • Announcements

    • admin

      Frequently Asked Questions About Celiac Disease   04/07/2018

      This Celiac.com FAQ on celiac disease will guide you to all of the basic information you will need to know about the disease, its diagnosis, testing methods, a gluten-free diet, etc.   Subscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter   What are the major symptoms of celiac disease? Celiac Disease Symptoms What testing is available for celiac disease?  Celiac Disease Screening Interpretation of Celiac Disease Blood Test Results Can I be tested even though I am eating gluten free? How long must gluten be taken for the serological tests to be meaningful? The Gluten-Free Diet 101 - A Beginner's Guide to Going Gluten-Free Is celiac inherited? Should my children be tested? Ten Facts About Celiac Disease Genetic Testing Is there a link between celiac and other autoimmune diseases? Celiac Disease Research: Associated Diseases and Disorders Is there a list of gluten foods to avoid? Unsafe Gluten-Free Food List (Unsafe Ingredients) Is there a list of gluten free foods? Safe Gluten-Free Food List (Safe Ingredients) Gluten-Free Alcoholic Beverages Distilled Spirits (Grain Alcohols) and Vinegar: Are they Gluten-Free? Where does gluten hide? Additional Things to Beware of to Maintain a 100% Gluten-Free Diet What if my doctor won't listen to me? An Open Letter to Skeptical Health Care Practitioners Gluten-Free recipes: Gluten-Free Recipes
  • 0

    GLUTEN FREE BEAUTY: IT'S PERSONAL (GLUTEN IN COSMETIC PRODUCTS)


    Kristen Campbell

    Celiac.com 10/02/2008 - Anyone with confirmed gluten sensitivity knows what a web of conflicting research and medical opinions he or she must wade through in order to get diagnosed. Sadly, it is a rare thing for a patient to have to consult less than a handful of doctors, and consider many various ailments before hearing the life-altering statement: You have celiac disease.


    Ads by Google:




    ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADS
    Ads by Google:



    So then it should be of no surprise that once the diagnosis has been made, there is still much debate over what this means to an individual. A celiac disease diagnosis means the lifetime avoidance of anything that contains gluten contained in wheat, barley and rye and their derivatives—and even this simple statement is not always agreed upon by experts.

    The consensus is that people with celiac disease or gluten intolerance must avoid the proteins found in wheat, barley and rye for the rest of their lives. But still, there is the occasional "expert" who seems to think that this “problem” could go away—that it can be “cured.” Of course, this idea seems completely off base to most, but to the patient of a doctor who has guided that individual into the gluten-free light, it just may seem to make sense.

    And reading even further into the only scientifically accepted treatment—a lifetime avoidance of gluten from wheat, barley and rye—more questions can be raised, for example: Should individuals who are gluten sensitive also avoid topical skin care and cosmetic products that contain gluten?

    Much of the research available seems to agree that lipsticks and toothpastes ought to be gluten free, but that a topically applied product need not be. Although this is a widely-accepted opinion, it falls to pieces the moment one considers the basis behind the entire green beauty industry’s monumental success: What goes on the skin, goes into the body.

    According to The Good Housekeeping Institute up to 60% of a product applied to the skin can be absorbed into the bloodstream. So why then would any individual with gluten sensitivity be so firm in his or her resolve to avoid dietary gluten, yet allow it to seep into the body via topical application? To some the answer may be simple—because his or her doctor said so. The very same doctor who changed that person’s life, forever improving his patient’s health, may not necessarily agree that gluten, or harmful fractions of gluten like gliadin, could pass into the patient's body and cause harm.

    A fortunate few, however, see a doctor who is more forward-thinking in his or her treatment methods—doctors who may be more aware of the latest research on gluten sensitivity. One example of such a doctor is Dr. Kenneth Fine, M.D. of EnteroLab.com, who understands that: "Gluten sensitivity is a systemic immune reaction to gluten anywhere in the body, not just that entering the body via the gut. Therefore, topically applied lotions, creams, shampoos, etc. containing gluten would indeed provide a source of gluten to the body, and we therefore recommend all such products be discontinued for optimal health."

    So to those individuals whose doctors still insist that it is unnecessary to adhere to a gluten-free beauty routine, perhaps an inquiry into that doctor’s thoughts on the general absorption of topical products may shine a light on the basis behind their opinions. Celiac disease and gluten sensitivity are becoming better understood, and some experts believe that up to 15% of Americans may be affected by some form of gluten sensitivity. And just as all who are gluten-sensitive continue to pour through the latest articles in an effort to live the healthiest gluten-free lifestyle that they can, so too are our doctors who are doing their very best to keep up with the latest scientific findings concerning gluten sensitivity. The more studies and research that are done on this topic, the better it will be for everyone—but unless a doctor is a specialist in this field, the necessary information concerning the broad range of problems that gluten can cause in a sensitive individual may not reach him in time.

    Perhaps acceptance of the idea that topical gluten can also wreak havoc internally is just the next step in the world-wide education of the ill effects that gluten can have on some people. But for now, the choice of whether or not to avoid topically applied cosmetics and skin care products that contain gluten is, for those affected, a matter of whose opinion they’re going to trust: Specialists in the field of gluten sensitivity, or doctors who may not be up on the latest information on the effects of gluten sensitivity.


    0


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Guest Celeste

    Posted

    Good info, something I have not considered. I'll be checking your website, but I want to learn how to identify products that contain gluten.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest Allison

    Posted

    Your Website is helpful, Kristen. I've wanted to switch over to gluten free cosmetics, but haven't had time to look into it. Thanks for the recommendations.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest Andrea

    Posted

    Excellent article. I react internally to topical gluten, and I have yet to find cosmetics that I have no reaction to whatsoever. Thank you Kristen.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Excellent info, not just for celiac but also those of us with gluten intolerance without a celiac diagnosis. I had just googled another website that was advising the wheat germ oil in topical products is likely to be safe on gluten-free diet.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Popular Contributors

  • Ads by Google:

  • Who's Online   6 Members, 0 Anonymous, 964 Guests (See full list)

  • Related Articles

    Dr. Ron Hoggan, Ed.D.
    This article appeared in the Autumn 2007 edition of Celiac.com's Scott-Free Newsletter.
    Celiac.com 03/10/2008 - Virtually every parent and every professional person who works with children wants to see them learn, grow, and achieve to the greatest extent of their potential.  The vast majority of these caregivers know that nutrition plays an enormous role in each child’s realizing their potential.  Unfortunately, that is where agreement ends.  There are almost as many perspectives on what constitutes a healthy diet as there are people on this planet.  Some claim that the healthiest diet is that of a vegetarian which almost invariably leads to a heavy reliance on grains and which is devoid of vitamin B12.  Others assert, based on cardiovascular disease being our number one killer that the best diet includes the smallest amount of fats.  They believe that fat consumption is related to blood cholesterol levels and that blood cholesterol levels are the best predictor of heart attacks.  Yet low cholesterol has been linked to increased cancer risk.  Still others argue for the health benefits conferred by a high protein diet.  They point out the importance of proteins in providing the building blocks for immune system function and the body’s maintenance and repair at the cellular level.  A small but growing faction points to the health benefits of a diet dominated by fats with little or no carbohydrate content.  Other diets target refined sugars and flours as problematic.  Added to this diversity, there is a plethora of dietary perspectives that advocate rigid proportions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.  The proportions of each component vary according to the data that is given the most credence by the creators and advocates of each diet.  Many dietary rituals have grown up around cancer avoidance or therapy, weight loss strategies, treatments for cardiovascular disease or its avoidance, and autoimmune diseases.  Book, video tape, audio tape, menu guides, and other media sales are just a starting point.  Some advocates of specific dietary strategies are even selling special foods that comply with their recommendations.  The profit motive can be a powerful factor in creating bias.  Then there are the government sponsored healthy eating guides.  Of course, each paradigm assumes that one diet can be recommended for all people.  The USDA has recently devised recommendations that do make concessions to gender and stage-of-life (with separate recommendations for children, adults, and seniors) but even with these changes, the USDA provides a clear message advocating plenty of grains and little fat.  It is difficult to determine just how much these recommendations have been influenced by special interest lobbies.  Agricultural and food production corporations have made astronomical investments in current dietary practices and shaping new dietary trends.  Is it reasonable to expect them to be responsive to evolving research findings?  
    Those of us who have experienced the painful shock that we were ill, sometimes deathly ill, from grain proteins that come highly recommended by government food guides, have had to revise our views of healthy eating and reject such flawed guidance.  Gluten sensitivity and celiac disease often crop up in the context of what many health care professionals tout as a healthy diet.  Prior to my own diagnosis of celiac disease, I remember one physician recommending that I eat bran every morning to reverse some of the gastrointestinal problems I was having.  He would not believe that eating bran made me vomit.  There is a persistent sense that we should all know what constitutes a good diet.  Almost every one of us who have to avoid gluten knows that avoiding it is a healthy choice for us, irrespective of government or private sector recommendations for healthy eating.  We have learned not to trust these prescriptions filled with certitude and rigidity.  We have found new-found health in eating habits that are diametrically opposed to those recommendations.
     
    Thus, many of us will have a very different view of conventional dietary wisdom.  For instance, Dr. Eve Roberts, a scientist at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, was quoted on Monday, September 24th in the Victoria Times Colonist as saying: “I do not want children to grow up with liver disease because we forgot to tell them how to eat” (1).  I’m sure that same attitude abounds throughout the medical profession.  Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming consensus that children should not suffer such diet-induced illnesses, there is little agreement on exactly what we should be telling children (or adults for that matter) to help them avoid fatty liver disease.  The medical literature provides research reports of several contradictions on this point. 
    In fact, contradictions abound throughout the medical literature.  So how are we to choose a healthy diet? What can we teach our children about eating well? For those of us who are gluten sensitive or have celiac disease, gluten avoidance is a given.  For our children, the answer is less clear.  They will be at greater risk of having celiac disease or gluten sensitivity, but what should we teach them about these grains? Should they avoid gluten entirely? Should they eat normally until they become ill—perhaps risking permanent neurological damage or a deadly cancer? Should they be constantly vigilant with regular blood tests, endoscopies, or IgG allergy testing?
    Many of us have been told to “just eat a balanced diet”.  It sounds appealing, but it is so vague as to provide little meaningful direction.  What is a healthy diet and how do we judge if any special interest group is more interested in health than profits? Just how much can we trust information that has a price tag attached to it? Somebody is profiting.  Can they really provide objective guidance? These questions should form part of our search for information.  There is nothing wrong with making a profit or earning a living from providing dietary advice.  However, it is important to be aware of any possible conflicts of interest.  
    For these reasons, I have developed my own strategy for determining what advice and guidance I can provide to my children and grandchildren.  I acknowledge that this approach is limited by my own biases, my finite capacity for assimilating and synthesizing information, my incomplete familiarity with nutritional research, and my own personal experiences.  On the other hand, I don’t have to worry about being directly influenced by profiteering or lobby groups diverting me from my primary purpose.
    On that basis, I have proceeded to explore my own dietary program.  I have conducted some trial-and-error experiments on myself, and I have read as extensively as my part-time avocation of dietary investigation permits.  From this, I have learned to trust my own gut.  If something doesn’t feel right in my stomach, I avoid it.  I have also learned to trust my sense of smell.  If a food does not smell appetizing to me, I don’t eat it.  I suspect that this is a tool that evolution has provided us with to determine what is and is not safe to eat.  Those without it probably stopped contributing to the human gene pool.  I have learned that IgG allergy testing is an effective tool with which I can reduce the lengthy trial-and-error process necessary for identifying the majority of allergies.  I realize that this testing has its weaknesses, but so does almost every other form of medical testing.  I have come to accept that as long as human beings are involved, we will have imperfect testing, regardless of claims to the contrary.  Finally, although I try to read critically, I read medical and scientific research reports to stay abreast of new findings and gain a better understanding of this complex field.
    The tentative conclusions I have reached, pending new information, are as follows:

    Gluten grains probably aren’t very good for people.  They are highly allergenic affecting at least 10% of the general population, and perhaps as much as 40%  of the population.  These grains also contain opioids morphine-like substances that can be highly addictive and have a deleterious effect on our ability to resist cancer.  They also contain large quantities of starch that is converted very rapidly into sugars. The evidence suggests that refined sugars and starchy foods cause many of our problems with obesity, vision problems due to growth related distortions of the eyeball, type II diabetes, and hypoglycemia.  Dairy products probably aren’t very good for anyone either.  They are also highly allergenic and contain opioids similar to those found in gluten.  Further, about two thirds of the world’s adult populations are lactose intolerant.  They don’t retain enzymes for digesting milk sugars after childhood. I think it is wise to avoid processed foods where possible.  The more they’ve been processed, the further they are from the state in which we evolved eating them. I believe it is a good idea to avoid eating soy because it has been linked to neurological diseases and other health problems that I don’t want to develop. I avoid foods to which IgG blood testing has shown to cause an immune reaction in me. I try to avoid juices, as these are mostly sugar.  Those are the things I try to avoid.  On a more positive note, there are several specific strategies that I try to follow:
    I take supplements of vitamins and minerals which evidence has shown that I either absorb poorly or have been depleted from the soils in which my food is grown. I try to eat whole fruits and vegetables. I try to eat when I am hungry—not according somebody else’s idea of appropriate mealtimes. If I am ever diagnosed with cancer, I will follow a ketogenic diet.  That is a diet that is dominated by fats, includes about 30% protein, and includes no carbohydrates.  I have tried this diet for about a month.  I can’t say that I enjoy it very much, but I’d be happy to forego the pleasure of carbohydrates if my life is at stake.
    I’m very grateful to my wife who works very hard at finding tasty treats so I don’t have to feel isolated or deprived in social situations where food is consumed.
    I’m convinced that even a little exercise is a critical feature of a well balanced diet, but that belongs in another column.
    I realize that these strategies are often impractical and I don’t pretend to live up to all of them, except for gluten and dairy avoidance.  I also suspect that I would be better off if I ate organic fruits and vegetables along with range fed meat.  I also suspect that I should avoid any genetically modified food.  We really don’t know what’s in that stuff! I haven’t reached the point yet where I am sufficiently motivated to change my diet to that extent, although I do realize that it would probably be a good idea.  I am convinced that Dr. Barry Sears is onto something when he advocates specific proportions of each food type for optimal health and performance.  Unfortunately, my diet is already complex enough that without some specific and highly motivating reason, I’m just too busy or lazy to be bothered with measuring such things.  I just let my taste buds and availability (my wife only cooks one cake at a time) determine my portion sizes.This is the balanced diet I recommend.  I sorely doubt that my children or my grandchildren follow my advice, except when they visit during mealtimes.  However I am confident that such a diet, should they choose to accept it, will not cause them to self-destruct due to dietary disease.


    Dr. Vikki Petersen D.C, C.C.N
    This article originally appeared in the Winter 2011 edition of Celiac.com's Journal of Gluten-Sensitivity.
    Celiac.com 08/29/2011 - Nearly 75% of the 24 million Americans suffering from autoimmune disease are women, according to the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association (AARDA).  Women appear to mount larger inflammatory responses than men when their immune systems are triggered, thereby increasing their risk of autoimmunity.  The fact that sex hormones are involved is indicated by the fact that many autoimmune diseases fluctuate with hormonal changes such as those that occur during pregnancy, during the menstrual cycle, or when using oral contraceptives. A history of pregnancy also appears to increase the risk for autoimmune disease.
    The sex hormone that is commonly low in such women is Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). This is a natural steroid and is produced by the adrenal glands, the reproductive organs and the brain.  DHEA is used by the body to make the male and female hormones, testosterone and estrogen respectively, and is known to have anti-inflammatory effects. It has been proposed that a DHEA deficiency is a contributing factor in autoimmune diseases.  Last year a study was done to look at precisely that effect.  The study’s conclusions have been supported by other, similar research and I think you’ll find it quite interesting.
    The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 94, No. 6 2044-2051(2009) published an article entitled “Low Serum Levels of Sex Steroids Are Associated with Disease Characteristics in Primary Sjogren’s Syndrome; Supplementation with Dehydroepiandrosterone Restores the Concentrations”. The authors investigated whether there was a relationship between steroid levels and the disease characteristics of Sjogren’s.
    They based their study on the known data that DHEA not only declines with aging but is reduced in Sjogren’s, an autoimmune disease. The study was populated by 23 post-menopausal women with primary Sjogren’s syndrome and subnormal levels of DHEA. The investigation was a controlled, double blind crossover study, conducted over a 9 month period, where DHEA was assessed by sophisticated laboratory measurements and typical symptoms of Sjogren’s such as dry mouth and eyes and salivary flow rates were similarly assessed.
    Results revealed a strong correlation between low DHEA and Sjogren’s symptoms.  DHEA and its sex hormone metabolites (testosterone and estrogen) were found to increase with DHEA supplementation but not with the placebo. Symptoms such as dry eyes were seen to improve as estrogen levels
    The researchers concluded that the disease manifestations of primary Sjogren’s syndrome were associated with low sex hormone levels and the supplementation of DHEA allowed the body to transform into androgens, testosterone and estrogen, with testosterone production predominating.
    Please allow me to add some personal interpretation. For the most part I agree with the premise and applaud the results. The facts that autoimmune disease occurs more often in women, that women frequently have low DHEA, and that androgens have anti-inflammatory effects that can benefit autoimmune disease are all true.
    But should we simply give such women DHEA and call it a day? I don’t think so.  I propose that we do three things: First, evaluate hormonal levels in women regularly; Second, address WHY their hormonal levels are imbalanced;  And third, when supplementing with hormones such as DHEA, ensure that the delivery system is one that mimics what the body does naturally.
    Remember that autoimmune disease can begin many years before the first symptoms become manifest. Therefore evaluating hormonal levels in our younger women is a good idea.  When I find DHEA levels that are low, my first order of business is to assess why.  Frequently it is due to a phenomenon known as “pregnenelone steal” that occurs when the adrenal glands are under stress.  It is a common occurrence and one of the fantastic abilities of the human body to shift from one pathway to another when under stress.  The “steal” pathway diverts the body away from making sex hormones and instead it makes more “stress” hormones.  So while adding some DHEA into the mix might very well help, does it make sense to find out WHY it’s being diverted away from making sex hormones?  I hope so because it’s the very foundation of the medicine that we practice—functional medicine.
    Once you understand the root cause of the deficiency you can take steps to truly remedy it rather than simply covering it up by taking DHEA.  Not to keep hitting you over the head with this concept, but supplementing with DHEA as your sole treatment misses the underlying cause since the body is designed to make adequate quantities of DHEA.
    A common reason for the diversion or “steal” pathway to become activated is adrenal stress from poor absorption of nutrients, unstable blood sugar and the presence of infections—all problems we see with the gluten intolerant patient! While I’m not implying that every autoimmune patient has a gluten intolerance, it certainly warrants screening all of them because of its high prevalence.
    As we travel down the road to optimal health through avoiding any food the body isn’t tolerating well, improving the integrity of the small intestine and normalizing adrenal function, there are certainly times when hormonal supplementation is beneficial. I don’t recommend the oral route because the first place the hormone travels is to the liver and this can be burdensome to that organ.  When the body makes hormones naturally it delivers them straight to the bloodstream.  In an effort to mimic that delivery system we use a buccal route (placed between cheek and gum in the mouth) that does a good job in bringing the hormone directly to the bloodstream and bypassing the liver and digestive tract.
    Autoimmune diseases comprise the third leading cause of death in our country and research strongly suggests that its rapid increase is due to environmental factors, especially those that weaken the small intestine. I am committed to earlier diagnosis while the disease is still remediable, as well as overall reduction of incidence through addressing digestive health.
    I hope you find this informative.  Please share this information with those who have autoimmune disease themselves as well as in their family.


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 11/25/2011 - In solidarity with family members who have food allergies, many families enforce a voluntary ban on the food or foods in question. But is that an that a safe and advisable practice?
    A leading dietitian claims that people who avoid foods to which they are not allergic may have problems if they attempt to reintroduce those foods later on in life. Dietitian Arlene Normand says that banning food for those without allergies is not healthy, and could lead to later health complications. Normand specifically claims that that banning foods for the whole family, just because a family member has allergies to those foods, may leave one at risk for developing sensitivities when those foods are reintroduced later.
    "You should not avoid any food because you can sensitize the body to that food," she said. "This could lead to an intolerance when you reintroduce the food. She cites wheat as another example, saying that people who "take wheat and gluten out of their diet suffer from bloating when they reintroduce bread." However, a number of prominent voice in the medical community strongly disagree with Normand.
    Many allergy specialists say there is no evidence to support that claim. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital allergy specialist Dr Robert Loblay flatly disputed Normand's claim. "There is no evidence to suggest that avoiding a food can predispose an individual to an intolerance," he Loblay. While he supported high risk allergy families eliminating foods such as gluten, milk or nuts, he said it can be difficult to enforce a total ban.
    For example, Dr Loblay says that it's fine to ban gluten for convenience when someone in the family has celiac disease. However, he says, there's no sound evidence that other people in the family should avoid eating foods containing gluten, or that they will suffer once they reintroduce it into their own diets. Alyson Kakakios of The Children's Hospital Westmead agrees that it's fine for families to place blanket bans on foods for the sake of one family member.
    "If one child has a cow's milk allergy, parents are in a bit of a dilemma about whether they should have cheese, yoghurt and cow's milk in the house because the risk is that the child will mistakenly drink or eat some," she said. "But that risk has to be counterbalanced against removing or excluding whole food groups from the other children and family members who are not allergic." So, what's the verdict on blanket bans of allergens for the whole family?
    Of course, everyone should weigh their own personal factors into the mix, but the current scientific thinking says that such bans are optional, and that there will likely be no increased risk of allergy if or when a banned food is reintroduced to someone who is merely avoiding the food, but not allergic to it to begin with.
    One exception on overall bans might be in those cases where allergies can be life-threatening. Exposure to certain allergens, such as nuts, can have severe consequences for people who are allergic, and an outright family ban might be easy and provide a great amount of relief all around. Anaphylaxis Australia president Maria Said agrees, saying "I would encourage parents to remove the allergen from the house if it is something that can be easily removed. It's much less stressful if you don't have the fear of your child having an anaphylactic fit."
    Otherwise, don't worry. Ban or don't ban depending on your family needs. Just make sure you're replacing any nutrients you might be losing out on by avoiding the banned foods. There is currently no solid scientific evidence to suggest that people who avoid foods would have any problems if they ate those foods many years later.
    Source:

    The Sunday Telegraph October 02, 2011

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 12/16/2013 - Numerous popular herbal products may be contaminated or may contain unlabeled substitute ingredients and fillers, meaning that they are not what their labels claim. According to the World Health Organization, adulterated herbal products are a potential threat to consumer safety.
    These revelations came to light after a group of Canadian researchers conducted an investigation into herbal product integrity and authenticity, with hopes of protecting consumers from health risks associated with product substitution and contamination.
    Using a test called DNA barcoding, a kind of genetic fingerprinting that been effective in uncovering labeling fraud in other commercial industries, the researchers found that nearly 60% of herbal products tested were not what their label claimed them to be, and that pills labeled as popular herbs were often diluted or replaced entirely, sometimes with cheap fillers that could be dangerous to consumers.
    In all, the researchers tested 44 herbal products from 12 companies, along with 30 different species of herbs, and 50 leaf samples collected from 42 herbal species.
    The researchers were Steven G. Newmaster, Meghan Grguric, Dhivya Shanmughanandhan, Sathishkumar Ramalingam and Subramanyam Ragupathy. They are variously affiliated with the Centre for Biodiversity Genomics, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario (BIO) at the University of Guelph, the Bachelor of Arts and Science Program at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, and with the Plant Genetic Engineering Laboratory, Department of Biotechnology, Bharathiar University in Tamil Nadu, India.
    Their laboratory also assembled the first standard reference material (SRM) herbal barcode library from 100 herbal species of known provenance that were used to identify the unknown herbal products and leaf samples.
    The team recovered DNA barcodes from most herbal products (91%) and all leaf samples (100%), with 95% species resolution using a tiered approach (rbcL + ITS2).
    Nearly 60% of the products tested contained DNA barcodes from plant species not listed on the labels. That means they were not what the label said they were.
    Furthermore, even though 48% of the products contained authentic ingredients, one-third of those also contained contaminants and/or fillers not listed on the label.
    The air data showed clearly that most herbal products tested were not what their labels claim, while most of the rest were poor quality, and often contained unlabeled, possibly dangerous, product substitute, contamination and fillers.
    They note that selling weak, ineffective, or mislabeled herbal supplements reduces the perceived value of otherwise helpful products by eroding consumer confidence.
    The study team recommends that the herbal industry embrace DNA barcoding to ensure authentic herbal products by effectively documenting raw manufacturing materials.
    They suggest that the use of an SRM DNA herbal barcode library for testing bulk materials could provide a method for 'best practices' in the manufacturing of herbal products, and note that this would provide consumers with safe, high quality herbal products.
    What do you think? Should herbal products and supplements be tested, authenticated and verified? Share your thoughts below.
    Source:
    BMC Medicine 2013, 11:222. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-222

  • Recent Articles

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/23/2018 - A team of researchers recently set out to learn whether celiac disease patients commonly suffer cognitive impairment at the time they are diagnosed, and to compare their cognitive performance with non-celiac subjects with similar chronic symptoms and to a group of healthy control subjects.
    The research team included G Longarini, P Richly, MP Temprano, AF Costa, H Vázquez, ML Moreno, S Niveloni, P López, E Smecuol, R Mazure, A González, E Mauriño, and JC Bai. They are variously associated with the Small Bowel Section, Department of Medicine, Dr. C. Bonorino Udaondo Gastroenterology Hospital; Neurocience Cognitive and Traslational Institute (INECO), Favaloro Fundation, CONICET, Buenos Aires; the Brain Health Center (CESAL), Quilmes, Argentina; the Research Council, MSAL, CABA; and with the Research Institute, School of Medicine, Universidad del Salvador.
    The team enrolled fifty adults with symptoms and indications of celiac disease in a prospective cohort without regard to the final diagnosis.  At baseline, all individuals underwent cognitive functional and psychological evaluation. The team then compared celiac disease patients with subjects without celiac disease, and with healthy controls matched by sex, age, and education.
    Celiac disease patients had similar cognitive performance and anxiety, but no significant differences in depression scores compared with disease controls.
    A total of thirty-three subjects were diagnosed with celiac disease. Compared with the 26 healthy control subjects, the 17 celiac disease subjects, and the 17 disease control subjects, who mostly had irritable bowel syndrome, showed impaired cognitive performance (P=0.02 and P=0.04, respectively), functional impairment (P<0.01), and higher depression (P<0.01). 
    From their data, the team noted that any abnormal cognitive functions they saw in adults with newly diagnosed celiac disease did not seem not to be a result of the disease itself. 
    Their results indicate that cognitive dysfunction in celiac patients could be related to long-term symptoms from chronic disease, in general.
    Source:
    J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Mar 1. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001018.

    Connie Sarros
    Celiac.com 04/21/2018 - Dear Friends and Readers,
    I have been writing articles for Scott Adams since the 2002 Summer Issue of the Scott-Free Press. The Scott-Free Press evolved into the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity. I felt honored when Scott asked me ten years ago to contribute to his quarterly journal and it's been a privilege to write articles for his publication ever since.
    Due to personal health reasons and restrictions, I find that I need to retire. My husband and I can no longer travel the country speaking at conferences and to support groups (which we dearly loved to do) nor can I commit to writing more books, articles, or menus. Consequently, I will no longer be contributing articles to the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity. 
    My following books will still be available at Amazon.com:
    Gluten-free Cooking for Dummies Student's Vegetarian Cookbook for Dummies Wheat-free Gluten-free Dessert Cookbook Wheat-free Gluten-free Reduced Calorie Cookbook Wheat-free Gluten-free Cookbook for Kids and Busy Adults (revised version) My first book was published in 1996. My journey since then has been incredible. I have met so many in the celiac community and I feel blessed to be able to call you friends. Many of you have told me that I helped to change your life – let me assure you that your kind words, your phone calls, your thoughtful notes, and your feedback throughout the years have had a vital impact on my life, too. Thank you for all of your support through these years.

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/20/2018 - A digital media company and a label data company are teaming up to help major manufacturers target, reach and convert their desired shoppers based on dietary needs, such as gluten-free diet. The deal could bring synergy in emerging markets such as the gluten-free and allergen-free markets, which represent major growth sectors in the global food industry. 
    Under the deal, personalized digital media company Catalina will be joining forces with Label Insight. Catalina uses consumer purchases data to target shoppers on a personal base, while Label Insight works with major companies like Kellogg, Betty Crocker, and Pepsi to provide insight on food label data to government, retailers, manufacturers and app developers.
    "Brands with very specific product benefits, gluten-free for example, require precise targeting to efficiently reach and convert their desired shoppers,” says Todd Morris, President of Catalina's Go-to-Market organization, adding that “Catalina offers the only purchase-based targeting solution with this capability.” 
    Label Insight’s clients include food and beverage giants such as Unilever, Ben & Jerry's, Lipton and Hellman’s. Label Insight technology has helped the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) build the sector’s very first scientifically accurate database of food ingredients, health attributes and claims.
    Morris says the joint partnership will allow Catalina to “enhance our dataset and further increase our ability to target shoppers who are currently buying - or have shown intent to buy - in these emerging categories,” including gluten-free, allergen-free, and other free-from foods.
    The deal will likely make for easier, more precise targeting of goods to consumers, and thus provide benefits for manufacturers and retailers looking to better serve their retail food customers, especially in specialty areas like gluten-free and allergen-free foods.
    Source:
    fdfworld.com

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/19/2018 - Previous genome and linkage studies indicate the existence of a new disease triggering mechanism that involves amino acid metabolism and nutrient sensing signaling pathways. In an effort to determine if amino acids might play a role in the development of celiac disease, a team of researchers recently set out to investigate if plasma amino acid levels differed among children with celiac disease compared with a control group.
     
    The research team included Åsa Torinsson Naluai, Ladan Saadat Vafa, Audur H. Gudjonsdottir, Henrik Arnell, Lars Browaldh, and Daniel Agardh. They are variously affiliated with the Institute of Biomedicine, Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; the Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; the Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Pediatrics, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; the Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institute, Sodersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden; the Department of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden; the Diabetes & Celiac Disease Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden; and with the Nathan S Kline Institute in the U.S.A.
    First, the team used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS) to analyze amino acid levels in fasting plasma samples from 141 children with celiac disease and 129 non-celiac disease controls. They then crafted a general linear model using age and experimental effects as covariates to compare amino acid levels between children with celiac disease and non-celiac control subjects.
    Compared with the control group, seven out of twenty-three children with celiac disease showed elevated levels of the the following amino acids: tryptophan; taurine; glutamic acid; proline; ornithine; alanine; and methionine.
    The significance of the individual amino acids do not survive multiple correction, however, multivariate analyses of the amino acid profile showed significantly altered amino acid levels in children with celiac disease overall and after correction for age, sex and experimental effects.
    This study shows that amino acids can influence inflammation and may play a role in the development of celiac disease.
    Source:
    PLoS One. 2018; 13(3): e0193764. doi: & 10.1371/journal.pone.0193764

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/18/2018 - To the relief of many bewildered passengers and crew, no more comfort turkeys, geese, possums or other questionable pets will be flying on Delta or United without meeting the airlines' strict new requirements for service animals.
    If you’ve flown anywhere lately, you may have seen them. People flying with their designated “emotional support” animals. We’re not talking genuine service animals, like seeing eye dogs, or hearing ear dogs, or even the Belgian Malinois that alerts its owner when there is gluten in food that may trigger her celiac disease.
    Now, to be honest, some of those animals in question do perform a genuine service for those who need emotional support dogs, like veterans with PTSD.
    However, many of these animals are not service animals at all. Many of these animals perform no actual service to their owners, and are nothing more than thinly disguised pets. Many lack proper training, and some have caused serious problems for the airlines and for other passengers.
    Now the major airlines are taking note and introducing stringent requirements for service animals.
    Delta was the first to strike. As reported by the New York Times on January 19: “Effective March 1, Delta, the second largest US airline by passenger traffic, said it will require passengers seeking to fly with pets to present additional documents outlining the passenger’s need for the animal and proof of its training and vaccinations, 48 hours prior to the flight.… This comes in response to what the carrier said was a 150 percent increase in service and support animals — pets, often dogs, that accompany people with disabilities — carried onboard since 2015.… Delta said that it flies some 700 service animals a day. Among them, customers have attempted to fly with comfort turkeys, gliding possums, snakes, spiders, and other unusual pets.”
    Fresh from an unsavory incident with an “emotional support” peacock incident, United Airlines has followed Delta’s lead and set stricter rules for emotional support animals. United’s rules also took effect March 1, 2018.
    So, to the relief of many bewildered passengers and crew, no more comfort turkeys, geese, possums or other questionable pets will be flying on Delta or United without meeting the airlines' strict new requirements for service and emotional support animals.
    Source:
    cnbc.com