Jump to content



Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-m):


  • You've found your Celiac Tribe! Join our like-minded, private community and share your story, get encouragement and connect with others.

    💬

    • Sign In
    • Sign Up
  • Gerry Brown
    Gerry Brown

    The Proposed Gluten-Free Labeling Rule Goes Far Beyond Providing Safe Food Options

    Reviewed and edited by a celiac disease expert.

    Journal of Gluten Sensitivity Spring 2013 Issue

    The Proposed Gluten-Free Labeling Rule Goes Far Beyond Providing Safe Food Options - Image: CC--Ged Carroll
    Caption: Image: CC--Ged Carroll

    Celiac.com 06/17/2017 - Hello, my name is Gerry. I am a certified Medical Technologist currently working as a Clinical Systems Analyst. I was diagnosed with celiac disease in 2006 by blood/biopsy. I have two wonderful children, 1 of whom has screened positive for a celiac gene pair. My strong background in Medical Technology assured a quick diagnosis once symptoms appeared. Since then, I have been living a strict gluten-free life. I have gone through nutritional counseling at Mayo Clinic and have an enhanced background with my understanding of the world of gluten. I use my experience and knowledge to accurately base my decisions on whether a product is safe for me. To prove my diet to be effective, I have had my TTG levels measured every 6 months since 2006—all were negative. Also, I have had 3 biopsies after beginning my gluten-free life and all were negative for villous atrophy. I do understand that my medical follow-ups do not prove that I am not ingesting small amounts of gluten; they simply indicate that I am not reacting. As for me, I view the gluten-free life to be much simpler and cheaper than it once was, and fear that strict gluten labeling guidelines have the potential to negatively shape the gluten-free life that I know and live today.

    Within the last few years, I have been receiving emails to ask my support regarding the FDA's gluten-free labeling rule. At first, I was a supporter as I wanted to support the celiac community since I was part of it. However, after I sat down and really thought about it, I am questioning the benefits of a strict gluten labeling act. In fact, I am predicting a negative impact if gluten labeling guidelines are too strict.



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A12):






    Celiac.com Sponsor (A12-m):




    When I started my gluten-free life in 2006, my grocery bill was atrocious. I was paying very high prices for the simplest of things. Tortilla chips $3.89 for a 6 oz bag. $3.99 for 8 oz of mustard. $5.99 for gluten-free mayonnaise. As the years moved on I noticed two changes that positively impacted my life as a celiac. The first is that many manufacturers have a list of their gluten-free products on their website along with explanations of how their company handles gluten. The second is the fact that many generic/in-store-brand companies are now labeling their products as "Gluten Free" or "Naturally Gluten free". Because of these two advancements, my life is so much easier and much more cost effective. This makes it easy to stick with my diet and keep my health safe and spirits up.

    Currently, if a product is made without gluten, it can be labeled as "gluten-free". Many products are available at a fraction of the cost and they are safe. Now that my family eats gluten-free, I have noticed that in today's world my grocery bill seems much more normal and realistic: gluten-free mustard $1.29; gluten-free mayonnaise $1.59;20 oz bags of tortilla chips labeled gluten-free $2.59; 8 oz bag of gluten-free cheese $1.99. You see, living a gluten-free life with today's rules is easy and I believe it to be safe if we are careful and make educated decisions.

    At this time we have many inexpensive non-brand/in-store brand name products that are widely available. I know of some stores that have 20+ pages of gluten-free items on an excel spreadsheet for their own brand of products, including medications. There are stores that update these lists quarterly, and most are listed by bar-code number. I can simply print the list and buy all of my products safely and inexpensively. I could easily make a phone call to clarify items that I may disagree with, or inquire about cross-contamination. Are these products that I speak of above tested for gluten? I don't believe so. Are these products free of gluten ingredients? I trust that they are. Is there cross-contamination? Maybe. It is easy for me to call and ask about their product lines. Are these products safe for me? I believe so, as I have the blood tests to prove they have been safe for me.

    Phone calls to companies on products that are not labeled as "gluten-free" are still the norm even though they are getting less frequent. As an expert, I am able to screen who I am talking to and the company's knowledge about gluten. I have been able to make accurate judgments on these products as well as deciding whether I believe them to be safe. In many of the cases, the company claimed their product to be free of gluten and I felt comfortable consuming the product. Yes, there were companies that didn't have acceptable knowledge/quality control and I didn't feel these products were safe so I didn't consume them.

    My first question to the celiac community is this. Do we need a strict gluten-free labeling act when we already have companies testing for gluten and providing safe products? If we want our products batch tested for gluten, we can simply purchase the ones that are currently available as there are many. If we want to know the threshold that the company considers as gluten-free, we can call them and they will tell us. Are there currently batch tested gluten-free products on the market? Absolutely. Many companies state on their packaging that they have been tested to under 20 or 40 ppm. If a company is testing, they make it known on the label and in the price of the product.

    My next question is what will a strict gluten-free labeling act do for us? I believe that it will ensure that a product is safe for celiac patients defining what a product needs to be in order to be labeled as gluten-free. Simple-yes. How do we suppose a company is going to know if their product is gluten-free? Well, if you ask me, it will NEED to be tested. Who will pay for this testing? I believe that the celiac community (the consumers) will be paying for this in higher food prices. If a company has to test a product to label it gluten-free, the price will need to go up in order to pay the cost of the testing and the quality control program for the company. We know this to be true as these products are already accessible.

    I see a possible negative impact of this labeling act if it were to be made too strict. I believe that manufacturers that do not test for gluten may need to pull their "gluten-free" labeling from the package. This could eliminate most of the inexpensive safe products that I currently purchase today. We know there are many manufacturers out there that label products as gluten-free as they simply do not use gluten ingredients. I believe these products may recede. I am not so sure a company will be able to label these products as gluten-free without first testing them. Even if they are allowed, I am not so sure they will take the risk. Therefore negatively impacting our pricing/availability.

    Will Gluten free lists on websites go away too? I believe these could fade or be at risk as well. If there is a law/act that dictates the amount of gluten in a product, I would think that a company would not create gluten-free lists of products without proving them to be gluten-free by some form of testing in an attempt to avoid legal action against them.

    What about our phone calls to companies asking if their products are gluten-free? Will they have a gluten-free list to review? I would tend to think that they may not be provided with a gluten-free list to reference. I have a hunch they may say, "We do not test any of our products for gluten and therefore are unable to tell you whether the product is gluten-free". I know that reply will complicate my life in many ways. The first thing that comes to my mind, in this regard, are the calls to pharmaceutical companies regarding medications.

    I feel that there are better ways to change the labeling as we know it that would offer a more positive effect on the celiac community. Maybe just changing the package labeling to force companies to list wheat, oats, rye, and barley on the packaging. How about requiring mandatory labeling of products that share lines with "gluten" containing ingredients? When we look at the big picture, I think it is safe to theorize that the impact of strict gluten labeling guidelines goes far beyond just providing safe products. In conclusion, I ask these questions. Will a strict gluten labeling act have the potential to negatively impact the celiac community by increasing prices and decreasing availability? And lastly, have we looked at the possible outcomes from all angles?


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Good article! Well thought out. Where worry is with the pharmaceuticals. Anything we put in our mouths needs to be labeled. It is not like they cannot afford it! I don't eat many processed foods, I consider them a weekly (or less) treat, but the only thing Id like to see changed is to have a set place for the label. The time is takes to search for a stupid little label is incredibly annoying. The difficulty in finding this label often keeps me away from processed food.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Interesting article and I understand the concept. I truly don't believe the "gluten free" labeling goes far enough at the moment. While I don't have celiac I do have a gluten allergy. My reactions to gluten vary depending on dosage and delivery system. Because of this I no longer trust anything that doesn't have the celiac seal of approval on the packaging. I've bought items that were labeled "gluten free" and had reactions because it wasn't. I've had to find alternatives to body products and medications as well. I think the drug and beauty industries should also have mandatory labeling that warns of gluten.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji 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.


  • About Me

    Gerry Brown

    I am a certified Medical Technologist currently working as a Clinical Systems Analyst. I was diagnosed with celiac disease in 2006 by blood/biopsy. I have two wonderful children, 1 of whom has screened positive for a celiac gene pair.


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):
    Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):





    Celiac.com Sponsors (A17-m):




  • Related Articles

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 09/12/2013 - Good news for consumers of gluten-free foods and other products: The FDA's new standards for the labeling of gluten-free food and other products apply to all foods and products labeled gluten-free, including dietary supplements and vitamins.
    The FDA rules state that any product declaring the contents to be "gluten-free," "no gluten," "free of gluten" or "without gluten," must meet all parts of FDA's gluten-free definition, including the requirement that the food contains less than 20 parts per million of gluten.
    People with celiac disease who consume gluten from wheat, rye, or barley risk gradual damage to the intestines, leading to poor absorption of vitamins and minerals and leading to a host of other health problems, including nutritional deficiencies, osteoporosis, miscarriages, and cancer," according to Virginia Cox, Associate Commissioner of FDA's Office of External Affairs.
    Creating uniform rules and conditions for the use of the term 'gluten-free' in the labeling of foods and other products is "necessary to ensure that individuals with celiac disease are not misled and are provided with truthful and accurate information with respect to foods so labeled, " according to the text of the final rule, which was published last week in the Federal Register.
    FDA projects the new requirements will yield annual health benefits of roughly $110 million, compared to estimated annual costs (related to testing and relabeling) of $7 million.
    Manufacturers of gluten-free foods and products will have one year to comply with the FDA's labeling requirements.
    Source:
    http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/news/2013/08/fda-gluten-free-definition-applies-to-dietary-sup.aspx


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 03/22/2016 - The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has extended the period for public comments on a proposed rule for fermented and hydrolyzed foods, or foods that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, and bear a "gluten-free" claim.
    FDA is extending the comment period for the proposed rule on gluten-free labeling for fermented or hydrolyzed foods by 60 days.
    The agency originally introduced the Proposed Rule for Gluten-Free Labeling of Fermented or Hydrolyzed Foods on November 18, 2015. The original public comment period was set to end on February 16, 2016.
    The new closure date for public comments will be 60 days after a notice appears in the Federal Register. The new rule's Federal Register Docket Number is FDA-2014-N-1021, and the relevant Federal Register Docket Name is: "Food Labeling; Gluten-Free Labeling of Fermented or Hydrolyzed Foods."
    The proposed rule does not require or establish standards for "gluten-free" labeling. Instead, it establishes compliance methods for fermented and hydrolyzed foods, or foods that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients that bear a voluntary "gluten-free" labeling claim.
    Source:
    Lexology.com


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 11/24/2016 - When Australia set it's gluten-content standards at zero ppm for gluten-free labeling, many people in the gluten-free community hailed the action as revolutionary for people with celiac disease or gluten-sensitivity.
    Sensitivity to gluten varies among celiac patients, so, in theory, restricting levels in food to under one part per million (ppm) would protect the maximum number of patients.
    International gluten-free standards require that foods labelled "gluten-free" (gluten-free) contain less than 20 ppm gluten. In Australia and New Zealand, however, a "no detectable gluten" standard applies.
    Now, a pair of researchers say product testing shows that 14% of imported products were non-compliant with the current Australian standard, but none contained more than 1.1 ppm gluten.
    Geoffrey M Forbes and Kenneth Dods are calling those standards "not practical or reasonable," and urging authorities revise the current Australian gluten-free standard of "no detectable gluten" to "≤ 1 ppm."
    Read the full story at: Med J Aust 2016; 205 (7): 316. doi: 10.5694/mja16.00485


    Yvonne (Vonnie) Mostat, RN
    Celiac.com 01/11/2017 - Did you know that Advertising has "Cottoned onto us?" In December all the magazines are about baking, foods, cakes and bakes, candies and calories. If you are not aware of what "Cottoned up" actually means, it means that even if we have celiac disease, gluten sensitivity or dermatitis herpetiformis, they know that in December, prior to Christmas, we are geared up to baking tasty, sweet, gluten-free treats. And in January we are into healthy eating, like natural soups, low calorie warm and nutritious eating, cost saving ideas, because we have just gone through Thanksgiving gluttony and Christmas eating.
    At one time we celiac people did not have the options that we have today. It was white rice bread from the freezer of the store, full of frosty tops, and vague cookies that cost $3.00 each. Now we have so many options we can get fat too, starting with Thanksgiving right up to New Year, when the new magazines come out with calorie cutting ideas, weight loss regimes, and a stringent diet!
    Did you know that celiac disease affects people differently? According to the The University of Chicago Celiac Disease Center: "There are more than 200 signs and symptoms of celiac disease, yet a significant percentage of people with celiac disease have no symptoms at all. However, people without symptoms are still at risk for some of the complications of celiac disease". For example, my 19 year old grandson's girlfriend has celiac disease, and she likely had it all her life. She was tested for celiac disease because she had "tummy aches before I write exams". That was it! Fortunately she had a bright mother who took her to the doctor and asked for the simple blood test for celiac disease. Sure enough, after doing the blood test and undergoing the biopsy of the jejunum, she had celiac disease.
    She was not skinny because she was 18 and growing, she was skinny because of malabsorption and eating her daily breakfast of cinnamon toast, and her usual lunch of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I am a little wary of the biopsy of the jejunum because as a nurse I found several discrepancies in the testing process. I have seen where a gastroenterologist who did failed to biopsy the correct area and told patients that they were negative for celiac disease. The patients became quite ill and the test was repeated by another gastroenterologist, and the test proved positive for celiac disease. In other words, the two patients did indeed have celiac disease.
    Did you know that the Head of dermatology at the University of British Columbia recommends Dapsone as the drug of choice for clearing up dermatitis herpetiformis? It is called the “Golden Standard” of treatment, which he teachers to all his students of dermatology. I had three biopsies of the lesions on three different places in my body. It was not until the fourth biopsy that they acquired a Positive for dermatitis herpetiformis. It is very difficult to obtain punch biopsies of the DH. But if they put you on Dapsone for four days the lesions begin to clear up almost immediately. It took longer for the lesions in my scalp to go away, around six month, and four days for those on the other parts of my body to disappear. And they were so itchy (as any of you with DH know) that I actually contemplated cutting all my hair off. I tried Quellada liquid thinking it might be fleas, bed bugs, or some other strange skin disorder. "A little learning is a dangerous thing", that is what they say to all nurses.
    Those of you who are newly diagnosed with DH and placed on Dapsone, please remind your doctor if he has not already told you that Dapsone can cause anemia. I was advised to take 2,000 Units of Vitamin C daily because it helps significantly with the anemia.
    According to an article by Lisa Fittterman in the Winter 2016 issue of Allergic Living magazine, a 28 year old California Mom was stymied by her child's reactions and celiac outbreaks because they are so vigilant about reading labels when shopping. The culprit was a new generic controller inhaler for her asthma. The Mom looked up the medication on the Internet and saw the word, "Starch". She says the drug turned out to contain gluten as an additive. She hit roadblocks at every turn.
    With celiac disease now affecting 1% of the people in North America, "drugs can present a distressing unknown". What is an excipient they ask? Inactive ingredients used as binding agents tent to give bulk and allow them to absorb water and disintegrate. They are derived from foods such as corn, potato or wheat starch. Independent investigations have shown that wheat starch is used less frequently than the other two because it doesn't bind well." When you ingest a new drug without knowing what it contains it is like walking down a road blindfolded says Sue Newell, the Canadian Celiac Association's manager of operations. "We teach people how to read labels and cut through jargon to identify every ingredient - but with prescription drugs they can't do that...they may need to take drugs, but they don't feel safe."
    The US. Based National Foundation for Celiac Awareness (NCA) released in the Fall of 2014, almost 25 percent of the 5,625 people with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity reported having experienced gluten-related symptoms to medication. Patients and health–care providers said this has led to anxiety and non-compliance in taking drugs. Both Canada and the U.S.A. Food and Drug Administration have national standards of less than 20 parts per million (ppm) of gluten for a packaged food to claim to be gluten-free, but the requirements for food labeling do not apply to prescription or over-the-counter drugs. In May 2015, the FDA denied the request of a citizen's petition to either ban gluten as an inactive drug ingredient or require that its presence be labeled. The FDA said that "No oral-drug product is expected to contain more gluten than the amounts potentially present in foods that can be labeled 'gluten-free' under the FDA's food-labeling regulations."
    It is far from an official requirement in Canada. The Canadian Food and Drugs Act sets the regulations for labeling gluten and allergens, but the focus has been far more on food. A Health Canada spokesperson says that the 2014 plain-language labeling initiative additionally makes it necessary for pill package inserts to list ingredients. But Newell of the CCA says these listings are not as transparent as they sound. Though the protein is not often present in our medications, the bad news is that finding out for certain may take the skill of a detective or a sleuthing pharmacist.
    It is time for the celiac and gluten sensitive community, to unite and fight, write letters, speak to their pharmacists and repeat the fact that the person ordering the drug is "A brittle celiac," and all drugs need to be researched by the pharmacist prior to filling prescriptions.
    Steve Plogsted, a pharmacist with a special interest in tracking gluten, suggests: "Watch for the word 'STARCH' as an excipient on a medicine, as it's the only likely culprit to contain gluten. If the word is there, try to drill down through the manufacturer as to what kind of starch. If it is wheat, you will need to avoid it."
    One man took a stand for gluten-free drugs. Michael Weber was diagnosed with celiac disease on 2004, and immediately adopted the gluten-free diet to protect his health. BUT, after taking a generic for only a few days, the resident of Eastchester, New York, was distressed to find he was again developing symptoms, such as the dermatitis herpetiformis skin rash he had incurred before the condition was discovered. It turned out the pills contained gluten as an inactive ingredient. Shocked to find this undeclared exposure after he had been so careful, Weber contacted the FDA, but he was informed that the manufacturer wasn't braking any rules by not stating gluten's presence overtly. In 2008, Weber filed a citizen's petition requesting that the FDA either ban gluten outright in medications, or require manufacturers to label for the protein. Then, for seven long years, he got politicians to write letters of support, and made follow-up inquiries, but he received no replies.
    Finally, in 2016 the U.S. consumer protection group Pullback Citizen filed a lawsuit to elicit a response from the FDA. Last May the agency issued a 21 page decision that denied the request for a ban and stated that manufacturers already needed to identify gluten as an intentionally added inactive ingredient to any drug that is taken orally. The FDA said it did, however, plan to issue "draft guidance" for industry regarding gluten in drug products, but no time-line was given. FDA spokesman Stephen King explained the decision in an interview saying that if people with celiac disease are doing well on a gluten-free diet, they "should" not be harmed by the very low amounts of gluten potentially present in oral drug products. Conversely, if they aren't doing well, "we would expect {them} to consult with [their] physician about ways to further reduce overall exposure to gluten. Such efforts might first focus on the diet as the most significant potential course for oral gluten exposure."
    But Katie Einspanier, Weber's lawyer through Public Citizen, criticized the ruling as nothing more than a super-technical reading of the petition since the FDA's response focused on the possibility of gluten itself being an inactive ingredient. "The most likely scenario for gluten in drugs is that gluten is simply a natural component of another inactive ingredient and not separately added as an inactive ingredient." Weber is considering whether to draft a new petition with more precise language. We will keep you informed regarding this one man's fight for gluten-free drugs. He needs to be cheered, and we all need to sit down at our computer and help by writing to pharmacists, the FDA, and the College of Pharmacy.


  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...