Trace Amounts Of Gluten Acceptable

[MichelleC]

Have any of you read this article: https://www.celiac.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=994

Any opinions, input about the findings?

Thanks,

Michelle

[gf4life]

I read it and I have to say that it makes me very uncomfortable to know that they are saying ANY amount of gluten is "acceptable". It can sometimes take years for the damage to show up on a biopsy. They did not say how long these study participants were consuming the small amounts of gluten and so it is understandable that they would not necessarily show visible damage. I wonder if they also did blood tests to see if their antibody levels were elevated? Or if they checked the biopsy sample on the celllular level to see if their intraepithelial lymphocytes were elevated, indicating a cellular change consistent with lower levels of damage in the intestines.

And if they say 100ppm is an acceptable level, then does that mean companies can say it is gluten free even though it contains a small amount. I know some already do this, but it is not very good for those celiacs who are extremely sensitive! Why do they have to use gluten at all! It isn't like there aren't any acceptable substitutes they can use in food manufacturing.

[tarnalberry]

gf4life, I'm with you. Studies like these worry me that companies will be able to label their food gluten free when it's not, in fact, gluten free. And those of us who want to keep as gluten free as it is ever possible to do (which, given that you really don't have to ever eat processed foods, I think is pretty gluten free) will have more trouble with this. I heard that CODEX was a way to make patients more compliant. Perhaps if doctors took the time to help their patients understand how to change their diet, we wouldn't have this problem. They can't do this for peanut allergies (it'd end up killing someone), they shouldn't do it to us.

[catfish]

I think that they need to consider a second label for "low gluten" foods that may fall within these levels, as clearly they shouldn't call it "gluten free" if it isn't...

[dkmb]

By 2008 under the Food Labeling Law (the one in the House now) the FDA is supposed to issue new guidelines for gluten free. I hope that this is not where those guidelines are headed. I agree with all the above replies and think a distinction between gluten free and low gluten is an excellent idea. Even at that late date companies will still have an option to state gluten free or not.

DK

[celiac3270]

I also agree with Mariann (gf4life).......even if they could guarantee that that amount would have no effect on any Celiacs, once you add it up with any trace amounts that you get from other foods or slight contaminations that normally wouldn't affect you....you're getting a significant gluten intake...if they can eliminate enough gluten to label it gluten-free, why can't they just get rid of all of it?

-celiac3270

[gf4life]

I also noticed that they didn't say whether the people in the study experienced any symptoms, only that they didn't appear to have intestinal damage. I don't care how much gluten they say might be safe, I experience symptoms with even the tiniest amount, so that would be enough for me to say no to any product that might contain "acceptable" trace amounts.

Mariann

[judy04]

Hi,

I also react violently to even the smallest amount of gluten

and I have no damage whatsoever to my small intestine

or the villi, my biopsy came back Neg.The only abnormal

reading was a 74 IgA. After 6 mos of gluten-free and 5 mos

of df eating, it dropped to 35 which is still not normal. My

last 2 gluten accidents took well over a week to get relief

from the pain. I can only imagine if I were a true Celiac!

[debmidge]

That is horrible. Husband gets sick from small amounts of cross contam; he needs this in his food like a hole in his shoe! To whom do we state our case against this?

[nthei]

I hate to say this, perhaps I'm in gloom and doom mode, but I find that you are going to get trace amounts no matter what. I'm sorry that is just the way I feel. I'm NOT saying however, that we should not be diligent. I'M a celiac so I'm not happy about this either. I do my very best and beyond to be strict about what I ingest, but I find it hard to believe that you don't get traces. This is just my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, just how I feel. This is my own paranoa. Everyone be careful! You are all great and we can defeat this.

Have a great day!

Christina

[kvogt]

As I recall, the report said 100 parts per million. That's the equivalent of 3.5 ounces per 2,202.6 pounds of food consumed. Given that is 2-4 years of food for a person, I don't think it's that big.

[celiac3270]

As I recall, the report said 100 parts per million. That's the equivalent of 3.5 ounces per 2,202.6 pounds of food consumed. Given that is 2-4 years of food for a person, I don't think it's that big.

With that statistic it sounds like less, but any amount being acceptable is still scary.

[plantime]

If it says gluten-free on the label, it should be gluten-free. No parts per million. Anything else is false advertising.

[Guest shar4]

Gluten Free should be GLUTEN FREE, not ALMOST gluten free, I react much more strongly now that I have been gluten-free, and resent getting something that is labelled gluten-free or appears to be gluten-free and then have to pay for it for days and days.

[travelthomas]

In our society deceit is considered acceptable for the greater good of greed, and until greed is thought of as bad, you will have to deal with deceit and gluten in your processed foods. Every time someone uses deceit to gain anything, this belief gets stronger.

[kvogt]

They said several interesting things in the report: that contamination in gluten-free products cannot be totally avoided; 13 of the 59 naturally gluten-free products tested contained gluten, that's 22%; 11 of the 24 Codex products contained gluten, that's 46%; people consuming 100 parts per million per day were found to have no damage; 100 ppm can be achieved by the food industry.

I think this is a blessing. They have determined a level of daily, incidental consumption that is both non-damaging to celiacs and practical to achieve by the food industry. From their test results, they show that gluten-free is not entirely possible, anyway when 22% of inheirently gluten-free products contain gluten. They mentioned "flours" so that tells me that there is some degree of risk in any baked good product that uses alternative flours. Given this information, I can't see where there will ever be any 100% certainty that a given baked good product is actually 100% gluten-free.

[XoHeatherxO]

I think it is actually scientifically impossible to remove all gluten....It is similar to diet or fat free foods, there is a certain amount and if a food contains less then that it is able to be labeled diet or fat free....I suppose the same would have to be true with the future gluten free labeling....I'm just happy with the passing of the bill little steps!!

[travelthomas]

Hi Heather Ann,

I disagree with you 100%. It is just a case of creating the proper environment to create 0ppm food. As long as people believe that a little poison is alright, we will still be poisoned.

I agree with you that some of us create our lives. Most people seem to be happy to let others create their lives for them.

[kvogt]

travelthomas,

To suggest that 0ppm is practical by "just creating the proper environment", to paraphrase, is unsupportable. Generally, quantums in purity are achived by quantums in additional cost. I doubt anyone will be able to afford a $40 or $400 bag of 0 parts per million gluten-free grain flour.

[rattaway]

Hey fellow celiacs. Just remember, a little bit goes a long way when it comes to accepting even the tiniest amounts of gluten. Secondly, do we have to change our names to "somewhat celiac" if they are still allowing gluten? If you give them an inch, the product companies may take a yard!

Rian

[lovegrov]

The sad fact is that 20 percent of processed foods that are not supposed to have gluten do actually have measurable gluten because of contamination somewhere in the process.

richard

[kvogt]

I'm not saying that anyone should be happy about getting any amount of gluten in a "gluten-free" product. I'm just saying that it will be impossible to achieve - all the time - and still be affordable.

If anyone wants to ensure they are 0ppm gluten-free, all the time, they should stop eating any gluten-free grain products. No breads, cakes, cookies, pizzas, etc.

[travelthomas]

Tinkyada rice pasta is produced in a dedicated factory, and I bought it at Albertsons here in College Station, Texas.

[plantime]

And avoiding all grain products is a problem because??? I am allergic to most grains, and have no problems with meat and veggies for meals. 0ppm is a goal worth achieving.

[celiac3270]

I think it is actually scientifically impossible to remove all gluten....It is similar to diet or fat free foods, there is a certain amount and if a food contains less then that it is able to be labeled diet or fat free....I suppose the same would have to be true with the future gluten free labeling....I'm just happy with the passing of the bill little steps!!

Though it is debatable as to whether or not 0 ppm is practical, I don't think anyone can argue that it is "scientifically impossible to remove all the gluten." That would be saying, for example, that if I eat a banana, I am guaranteed to ingest gluten.

Additionally, whether it is practical to make a 100% gluten-free food or not, it is practical for companies to warn consumers that their so-called "gluten-free" products are made in a factory that makes gluten products. Companies such as FritoLays warn their consumers, so there's no reason why the makers of special gluten-free foods should be contaminating celiacs without even warning against contamination....i'm starting to ramble......