In the July, as part of its annual Consumption Habits poll, Gallup asked just over a thousand Americans about foods they include or avoid in their diet.

The was the first year the poll included questions about "Gluten-free foods."

Demographic differences in those who seek out gluten-free foods are fairly minor.

One in three non-white Americans say they actively include gluten-free foods, compared with 17% of whites.

Age seems to influence the purchase of gluten-free foods, with
25% of adults under 50 buying gluten-free, compared with 17% of those aged 50 and older.

Men and women bought gluten-free food at about the same rates.

Interestingly, more educated and wealthier Americans tend to be less likely to include gluten free-foods in their diet than Americans with no college experience and lower-income Americans, respectively, though the differences were fairly small.

The report's overall bottom line is that the gluten-free food market has grown substantially in the past five years, as has the introduction of more foods that do not contain gluten.

With one in five Americans now seeking to include these products in their diet, the prevalence goes well beyond the roughly 1% of Americans with celiac disease, who have a serious medical reason to avoid gluten.

Many Americans say they eat gluten-free foods as part of an attempt to lose weight, a version of a no-carb diet, while others claim it improves their well-being.

Though it's unclear how healthy a gluten-free diet is for people who do not have celiac disease, the percentage of Americans who say they are attempting to include gluten-free food in their diet shows how widespread the practice is.

Source:

• Open Original Shared Link

Celiac.com 10/02/2015 - Many people with celiac disease or gluten-intolerance take digestive enzymes, hoping for some protection against accidental gluten-contamination.

Post-proline cutting enzymes have been shown to effectively degrade the immunogenic gluten peptides and have been proposed as oral supplements. Several existing digestive enzyme supplements also claim to aid in gluten degradation.

However, not all gluten proteins are the same. The gluten proteins that are particularly active in triggering an adverse immune reaction in celiac disease are known as immunogenic 33-mer from α-gliadin and a 26-mer from γ-gliadin.

So, how effective are currently available digestive enzyme supplements ineffective in breaking down these specific gliadins that triggers immune reactions in people with celiac disease? A team of researchers recently set out to determine the effectiveness of such existing enzyme supplements in comparison with a well characterized post-proline cutting enzyme, Prolyl EndoPeptidase from Aspergillus niger (AN-PEP).

The research team included G.Janssen, C. Christis, Y. Kooy-Winkelaar, L. Edens, D. Smith, P. van Veelen, and F. Koning. They are variously affiliated with the Department of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion at Leiden University Medical Centre in Leiden, The Netherlands, DSM Food Specialties, Delft, The Netherlands, and DSM Food Specialties in South Bend, Indiana, USA.

For their study, the team subjected each of the five commercially available digestive enzyme supplements along with purified digestive enzymes to 1) enzyme assays and 2) mass spectrometric identification. Gluten epitope degradation was monitored by 1) R5 ELISA, 2) mass spectrometric analysis of the degradation products and 3) T cell proliferation assays.

Their findings show that, due to the high proline content of gluten molecules, gastrointestinal proteases are unable to fully degrade them leaving large proline-rich gluten fragments intact, including an immunogenic 33-mer from α-gliadin and a 26-mer from γ-gliadin.

Basically, none of the currently available digestive enzyme supplements are effective in degrading immunogenic gluten epitopes. This means that these enzymes are not likely to be helpful to people with celiac disease.

Share your thoughts in our comments section below.

Source:

• Open Original Shared Link

The survey team included EA Garber, R Panda, and KF Shireen. They are variously affiliated with the Office of Regulatory Science, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and the Office of Compliance, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in College Park, Maryland, USA.

Initially, none of the test results show the required concurrence between the RIDASCREEN gliadin (R5) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the Morinaga Institutes of Biological Science (MIoBS) wheat protein ELISA.

So, just based on that, it would appear that none of the 20 products included in the survey tested positive for wheat, rye, barley, or gluten.

Moreover, eight of the teas generated responses indicative of the presence of gluten with the RIDASCREEN gliadin (R5), AgraQuant gluten G12, and Aller-Tek (Skerritt) sandwich ELISAs. Five of the eight teas generated responses indicative of >20 ppm of gluten using the RIDASCREEN and AgraQuant ELISA test kits, and all eight had ≥ 20 ppm based on the Aller-Tek ELISA.

Extracts prepared using the RIDASCREEN validated protocol and the MIoBS validated sodium dodecyl sulfate plus β-mercaptoethanol (overnight) protocol were analyzed using both test kits. The extracts prepared using the RIDASCREEN protocol tested positive for gluten with both test kits.

Western blot analyses of the two sets of extracts using the R5 and MIoBS antibodies to visualize the bands revealed the presence of antigenic proteins in both sets of extracts, although the profiles and band intensities were different and inconsistent with the ELISA results.

Right now, there's no need for alarm. The researchers are not saying that these types of tea contains gluten. Technically these teas are not failing a gluten test.

What the researchers are saying is that there needs to be a review of gluten screening procedures and how the observation of a homologous antigenic element is defined, so that the tests are accurate and reliable.

Source:

• Open Original Shared Link

Celiac.com 09/28/2015 - The Irish Daily Star is reporting that more than two dozen inmates at the country's top security Portlaoise Prison are set to protest prison authorities' refusal to give them gluten-free bread and better food.

The inmates, including RIRA boss Michael McKevitt, say prison officials have broken an agreement to supply gluten-free bread as part of the prison diet.

The availability of gluten-free bread seems to be an issue in what sounds like a larger complaint about the quality of food at the prison. Prisoners can purchase better food at the prison shop, at what prisoners claim are astronomical prices.

According to the Daily Star, prisoners have begun stockpiling rubbish in preparation for a "dirty protest" in a bid to get the authorities to change their mind. The Prison Services have declined to comment. There has been no word about a direct connection to celiac disease in regards to the prisoners' demand for gluten-free bread.

Earlier this week, republican prisoners group Cogus issued a statement highlighted food as one of the prisoners' main complaints.

While that particular statement made no mention of gluten free bread, it read in part:

"The food has seriously deteriorated over the last number of months and in general is sub-standard, at times unfit for human consumption, comprising of basic small portions which are totally inadequate."

"This has resulted in men having to purchase food with the little money they have through the prison shop which charges extortionate prices. Numerous attempts have been made by the prisoners to resolve this issue but to no avail."

Stay tuned for more developments.

What do you think? Are prisoners entitled to gluten-free bread?

Read more at: Open Original Shared Link

Celiac.com 09/25/2015 - Are anti-GMO campaigners blocking gluten-free wheat that could help people with celiac disease?

There's an interesting blog post by Daniel Norero in Open Original Shared Link. The blog post claims that a type of GM wheat that may improve the quality of life for celiac patients has faced opposition from anti-GMO campaigners who oppose approval and commercialization of the product.

Certainly, producing a variety of gluten-free wheat offers one alternative to avoiding gluten. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to create a baking-quality gluten-free wheat strain using conventional techniques such as selection and hybridization.

That reality led a team of Spanish scientists, headed by Dr. Francisco Barro, to use RNA interference (RNAi) to deactivate or delete the genes in wheat that produce the gliadin proteins. By 2011, the team had created four strains of wheat with particularly low amounts of gliadins, which produced in people with celiac disease a reaction up to 95% less toxic than the one produced by standard wheat.

Two of those wheat strains, E82 and D793, showed gliadin reductions of about 96% and 97% respectively. For people with celiac disease, this would equate to a safe maximum daily consumption of bread up to 43.6 and 66.9 grams per day.

The blog entry goes on to say that, despite the opportunity presented by this GM crop to improve the quality of life of celiac patients, problems have arisen at the approval and commercialization stages, largely due to opposition from Spanish and European anti-GMO activists.

Norero then quotes from blog post by Jose Miguel Mulet, a Spanish plant scientist from CSIC:

Norero makes an interesting read. It's certainly possible that some type of genetic modification could benefit people with celiac disease. However, it's unclear how a wheat with a 95-97% reduction in gluten toxicity would relate to the current 20ppm total gluten allowed by U.S. law, or exactly what the nature of the alleged benefits for celiacs might be.

What do you think? Should genetically modified wheat be permitted if it's helpful to people with celiac disease or gluten intolerance? Or no, should there be no GMO wheat, no matter the claimed benefits? 

Celiac.com 09/18/2015 - That old saw about death and taxes might need a bit of amending to include complaints about pharmaceutical companies working on celiac drug treatments.

One interesting facet of our coverage of the development of various drugs to treat and/or cure celiac disease has been the regular presence of comments questioning the motives,and actions of the companies involved.

It's funny, but no one complains that companies still make money selling aspirin, and that no one has cured a headache, and that there must be some conspiracy to profit off of those who suffer a headache.

There's no doubt that there's money to be made producing drugs that treat disease. But, if a company can develop and produce a safe drug to protect celiacs against contamination, or to help reduce symptoms, what's wrong with that?

Just like an aspirin, I can take it or not take it.

In the old days, ten years ago or more, people with celiac disease generally suffered in silence, with scant gluten-free food choices, and little information. However, in just a decade, we've got a wealth of information, and multi-billion dollar gluten-free foods market and a number of companies developing drugs to treat or cure celiac disease.

To me, that's a good thing. Still, there are naysayers. Here's a rundown of comments by readers who seem less than enthused about celiac drugs in development.

Our recent article, An Update on Every Celiac Disease Drug Currently in Development included the comment:

"Article's fine. Concept's disturbing. Eating a gluten-free diet is the free, already-proven cure for celiac and gluten-intolerance. They don't have to torture mice and likely other animals to find a 'cure' for something that there already is a cure for. I imagine there is $$ for the researchers here and $$ for the animal labs and $$ for the pharmaceuticals."

Of our article entitled, How Close Are New Celiac Disease Treatments? one reader wrote:

• "I would be very cautious about taking any of these until it was proven absolutely to have no side effects. There always are some and history has shown some to be deadly."

Commenting on our article ALV003 Reduces Gluten Damage in Celiac Disease Patients, one reader commented:

"I only want to know: how long until random internal organs begin to fail or malfunction as a result of yet another new mystery drug? I'd rather starve to death than be a guinea pig for big pharma again."

Our article on NexVaxx, entitled Is a Vaccine for Celiac Disease Just Around the Corner? included the following comments:

• "Totally agree with vhill seems like a ploy to poison people with GMO foods that come up with a supposed "'cure'. Eat healthy whole foods this is not a curse its a wake up call to be healthy if you didn't have celiac you'd probably be eating processed crap."
• Balm wrote: "Thanks but no thanks. I'll remain a celiac and continue to eat healthy. While trying to fix one problem, some will end up with far worse problems."
• Jonnys wrote: "Stupid idea! Just another way to make more money off of people."

These are but a few of the largely positive comments we receive, and we hope you enjoyed them as much as we do.

Celiac.com 09/11/2015 - At Celiac.com, we're generally of the opinion that any publicity about celiac disease and gluten sensitivity is good publicity. We've always believed that the less people know about celiac disease, the more those who have it are at risk.

Undoubtedly gluten-free celebrities are bringing a huge awareness to celiac disease and the gluten-free diet, and this has lead not only to increased awareness of the disease, but also may have directly contributed to lowering the overall risk for those of us who have it by vastly increasing the number of people who are on the gluten-free diet. This has ultimately led to an explosion in the number, variety and availability of gluten-free products. 

Interestingly, articles about gluten-free celebrities have prompted some our strongest and most vocal backlash. The main thrust of many of these negative comments seems to be the idea that the seriousness of their own celiac disease will somehow be adulterated by celebrities who "come out" about the gluten-free diet but don't actually have celiac disease. Somehow they believe that this could lead to others not taking the diet seriously enough, or there is the belief by some that these celebrities just want to make a buck off of those who need to be on the diet.

A partial list of some noteworthy celebrities and athletes who reportedly follow a gluten-free diet due to celiac disease, gluten-intolerance, or other reasons include: news host Keith Olbermann, actor Billy Bob Thornton, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Katherine, Dutchess of Kent, pro quarterback Drew Brees, news anchor Heidi Collins, Katherine, Dutchess of Kent, news host Keith Olbermann, actor and writer Billie Bob Thornton, author Sarah Vowell, and actresses Zooey Deschanel, Susie Essman, Jennifer Esposito, Goldie Hahn, Gwyneth Paltrow, Emily Rossum, and Rachel Weisz.

We've mentioned a few of them in articles over the years, and boy have we gotten some spirited responses. Here are a few:

The above article prompted this comment:

• "I'm very surprised celiac.com would promote this kind of stuff on their site. Celebrities going gluten free does not help our cause. It just diminishes it."

We've selected some of our favorites comments for your reading pleasure. Celebrities who've drawn the ire of our readers include Lady Gaga, about whom one reader wrote: 

• "Great. One more celebrity jumping on the gluten-free bandwagon 'to lose weight'. This doesn't help establish credibility for the celiacs who truly need to follow a gluten-free diet."

While another wrote:

• "It is very aggravating when there is publicity for a notorious star on a gluten-free diet without good reason. I think it trivializes the serious medical problem of celiac disease. This needs to be recognized as the dangerous condition it is and the diet needs to be followed for life. This is NOT A FAD DIET!"

Our article about good old Gwyneth Paltrow caused one reader to write:

• "Paltrow - not my cup of tea. Nose in the air and head - we need better examples of celebrity concern and involvement."

One reader took particular exception to the idea that Novak Djokovic occasionally breaks his gluten-free diet:

• "He is a disgrace to the gluten-free diet. Go on Youtube and search Novak Djokovic Interview On Live With Regis & Kelly 09-13-2011 watch from 4.35 where he admits he still eats gluten. Thanks to celebs like him celiac disease is seen as a joke!"

Elizabeth Hasselbeck doesn't fare much better, sparking one reader to comment that:

• "Elizabeth Hasselbeck is trying to get attention. Her story is no different than thousand of others."

When actress Charlize Theron called BS on gluten-free diet faddists, our readers wrote:

• "Stop giving airtime to people who have obviously not done their research and/ or do not know how to read and interpret scientific studies."

And:

• "Charlize has a real potty-mouth, and is not overly bright. Does she think that gluten free means sugar free, since she blasted the cupcake for not having sugar. I don't believe actors are medical experts, just because they are popular. And I sure wouldn't take any advice or change my diet on their say-so."

More than a few readers commented on our article entitled Jimmy Kimmel Skewers Clueless Gluten-free Dieters, including one who wrote:

• "Why is gluten intolerance or coeliac disease supposed to be hilariously funny and only something that hypochondriacs obsess about? At least most of these people showed some awareness of what foods contain gluten, I do not see that it matters much if they cannot give a scientific definition."

Another reader agrees, noting:

• "this is no 'joke' to those who have the slightest crumb and get very, very ill. Everyone is affected differently, but I wouldn't wish those cramps and the pain on my worst enemy."

Practically the only celebrity to come out of a gluten-free celebrity article unscathed was The Daily Show's Jon Stewart.

We did get overwhelmingly favorable comments about Jon Stewart's handling of the topic of celiac disease, and its effects upon him as a dad.

Proving perhaps that, if you're a popular celebrity with an accurate, compassionate and serious message about celiac disease, people probably won't hate you.

Oh, and then there is Chelsea Clinton. If you count Chelsea Clinton as a celebrity, then it's fair to mention that folks had nice things to say about her gluten-free wedding cake.

Celiac.com 09/07/2015 - Cereal maker General Mills is facing criticism from some people with celiac disease who say its gluten-free manufacturing practices are unsafe, unreliable, and leave them at risk for adverse gluten reactions.

A number of celiac disease patients and others with gluten sensitivities are questioning the company's practice of removing wheat, rye and barley from standard oats, rather than sourcing actual gluten-free oats. General Mills' special method for sorting grains allegedly removes any wheat, barley and rye from the whole oats, before they are made into oat flour.

A group called "Gluten Free Watchdog" has engaged General Mills regarding cross-contamination possibilities during the grain sorting and manufacturing process. The process used by General Mills to sort its oats for the gluten-free Original, Multi-Grain, Apple Cinnamon, Honey Nut and Frosted Cheerios is described in an Open Original Shared Link.

Gluten Free Watchdog's concerns include the reliability of testing analysis. General Mills currently uses a sampling method to test the cereal and check that gluten is 20 parts per million (ppm) or less, but Gluten Free Watchdog claims this method can result in uneven results, and that some batches of cereal may actually contain more than the allowed 20 ppm of gluten, although they haven't offered any solid examples that support their theory.

To its credit, General Mills seems to be honestly engaged in the discussion, and has signaled an openness to sourcing pure gluten-free oats, which would address the concerns of groups like Gluten Free Watchdog.

What do you think? Should General Mills be using gluten-free oats for their gluten-free products? Is it okay if they use regular oats and special sorting equipment to ensure the final oats are under 20 ppm, as required by law? Share your thoughts below.

Celiac.com 09/02/2015 - Cereal maker General Mills is pulling the plug on its Gluten Free Chex Oatmeal.

A spokesperson for General Mills confirmed that the product has been discontinued due to low sales. The company says it will make its final shipments of the gluten-free oatmeal in October.

This constitutes an ignoble end for a brand that made its official debut last year.

Chex Gluten Free Oatmeal was available in original, apple cinnamon and maple brown sugar flavors, and made without artificial flavors, colors, preservatives or high fructose corn syrup.

The decision to discontinue Gluten Free Chex Oatmeal comes amid controversy regarding General Mills methods of sorting oats for its new gluten-free Cheerios.

What do you think? Are you sad? Or are there too many good gluten-free choices to worry? Share your thoughts below.

If you have celiac disease, or gluten sensitivity, gluten-free foods are necessary and beneficial, but the new study suggests that, nutritionally speaking, there's no evidence that they're any healthier than their gluten-containing counterparts.

The research looked at 3,200 food products on Australian grocery shelves, and found little or no nutritional difference between regular foods and comparable gluten-free items. Now, that doesn't make gluten-free products unhealthy, just no better than their gluten-containing equivalents.

But if you are not celiac or gluten-sensitive, then you're probably spending more money to get the same nutrition, and not getting any health benefits. Strangely, plenty of people seem to believe that sugary treats such as cakes are 'healthier' if they are gluten-free.

The study compared supermarket products in 10 categories: bread, breakfast cereal, dry pasta, cereal bars, cakes, sweet biscuits, ice cream, potato chips, processed meats, and candies.

The study team assessed foods using the Australian Government's Health Star Rating, which rates food by nutritional value. The rating system awards one star to the foods with the least nutritional value, and five stars to those with the most.

Basically, when they crunched the numbers using the Health Star Rating, the team found no significant difference between the ratings of gluten-free foods and their regular alternatives.

For me, though, the real takeaway is that there's a good amount of processed food out their, gluten-free or not, and you're likely healthier eating fresh, whole foods than anything processed.

Or, alternatively, it takes a bit of effort to maintain a healthy diet, whether you are gluten-free or not. Share your thoughts below.

Source:

• Open Original Shared Link

Celiac.com 08/14/2015 – Recently I took a last minute, end of Summer road trip with my family and on one of our pit stops I was delighted to discover the often rumored, highly elusive and possibly "Holy Grail" of gluten-free food: Subway's gluten-free sub rolls! Yes, I am here to tell you that they do indeed exist, even though I almost couldn't believe it even when I saw them—but there they were...a whole stack of six inch long gluten-free Subway rolls—sitting right in front of me in tidy, individually wrapped cellophane packages.

I had to rub my eyes and look twice to make sure that I wasn't dreaming because I, like many people, believed that Subway had discontinued them after a temporary Oregon-only trial run, and had decided against a permanent gluten-free roll out. Apparently though, in Oregon at least (and perhaps in other states?), they are still going strong many months after their rumored demise. To top this off, they even offered a gluten-free brownie for dessert!

Rather than getting stuck with a chopped Subway salad again I was finally able to order a real submarine sandwich—just like everyone else. So, I immediately honed in on an old favorite and decided to try their Spicy Italian sub on a gluten-free roll. What...no bewildered look on their faces when I asked for gluten-free? They seemed to know exactly what I wanted, and the employee who prepared my sandwich seemed to follow a carefully prepared script—she first cleaned off the prep counter, then changed into a new pair of clean gloves, and finally pulled out a new, clean sheet of paper onto which she set the packaged roll. The roll was pre-cut, thus she didn't have to use the bread knife to cut it, which was likely contaminated. While making the sandwich I was offered the option of having it toasted (some sensitive celiacs may want to skip the toaster oven part), and I noticed that when she toasted mine she made sure that it went into the oven solo, so that it would not touch other sandwiches (it was also on its original sheet of clean paper when it went in).

At this point you are probably wondering how it tasted, right? It was simply fantastic! Why can't other companies make gluten-free bread taste like this? It was soft, strong and slightly chewy. It wasn't at all dry, and seemed very fresh. My wife wanted me to ask them if they were sold separately so that I could take some home with me, which I didn't do, but you get the idea—they were really good and tasted very fresh.

I was so excited about the prospect of being able to once again eat Subway sandwiches that I ended up stopping at Subway several times during our road trip.

Each time I visited a Subway in Oregon I noticed that other people were also ordering or eating gluten-free subs, and in each case the staff seemed to follow their gluten-free script perfectly. It is difficult to estimate the exact ratio of gluten-free customers from such a small sampling, but it seemed to me that around 10-20% of total visitors ordered the gluten-free roll. Most companies would do almost anything to grow their business by 10-20%, but in this case the opposite could be the case—businesses should be willing to offer gluten-free options so they don't lose 10-20% of their business! I certainly hope that Subway's Oregon test bed is going well, and that Subway has learned that offering gluten-free sub rolls is great for business.

And now for the $64,000 question: Will Subway roll out their gluten-free rolls to other states, and if so, when? It's time for Subway to share the gluten-free love beyond just Oregon! Of course with the P.F. Chang's litigation still ongoing, they are likely now in a holding pattern to see how that case turns out.

Have you seen gluten-free Subway rolls outside of Oregon? Please let us know below.

Celiac.com 08/05/2015 - Should restaurants be required to provide gluten-free food at the same prices it charges for regular gluten-containing items? That question is at the heart of a lawsuit brought by a woman who claims P.F. Chang's has violated federal anti-discrimination laws by charging more for gluten-free items. A federal judge has now "tentatively" dismissed that lawsuit.

P.F. Chang's had asked the judge in February to dismiss Anna Marie Phillips' class action lawsuit, claiming that her celiac disease does not make her a disabled person under the Americans with Disabilities Act. At that time, lawyers for Chang's urged U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte to dismiss the suit to prevent what they termed a 'negative impact' upon restaurant industry as a whole.

Phillips originally sued P.F. Chang's in a California state court in December, but the case was later moved to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. According to the motion, the dismissal rests largely on the failure of the plaintiff "to plausibly allege that she is disabled under any applicable statute since her condition constitutes only a minimal limitation on the major life activity of eating."

In words that may raise the eyebrows of many people impacted by celiac disease, the judge goes on to say that the plaintiff can "still consume all gluten-free foods. No authority supports plaintiff's baseless position that she is disabled." P.F. Chang's also maintained that, because it charges the same price to all customers of its gluten-free items, it is charging based on the food cost, not adding a surcharge based on the gluten-free status of the customer, and is thus not discriminating on the basis of disability.

The class action suit states that because a gluten-free diet is medically necessary for individuals with celiac disease, gluten-free patrons have no choice but to order at the higher price.

Phillips brought suit on behalf of persons with celiac disease or gluten intolerance who ordered items from P.F. Chang's gluten-free menu in California within four years prior to the suit.

In an interesting legal wrinkle, the CEO of the Celiac Disease Foundation said in a February Legal Newsline article that it did not agree with Phillips' claims.

"Celiac Disease Foundation recognizes that restaurants bear a financial burden for the employee training and other accommodations that are required to serve meals that are safe for those with celiac disease," Marilyn G. Geller said.

P.F. Chang's cited the article in its motion to dismiss.

What do you think? If P.F. Chang's provide gluten-free food in accordance with the law, must it provide the food at the same price as its non-gluten-free items, or can it charge more to reflect its costs?

Read more at: Open Original Shared Link