Allergen-free

[kenlove]

A friedn jsut sent this to me--

--------

Allergen-free: time for clarity

[lizard00]

That is very interesting!! I had read about the potential of a new accepted gluten-free standard of 20ppm. My question, and Ken I'm asking you because you are our resident chef... what's with that? If it's such a minute scale, why bother? or is that strictly a CYA amount to cover CC?

[kenlove]

My guess is that this 20ppm would have something to do with the manufacturing of gluten-free products even in a dedicated facility. They always seem to cloud the issue though, free should be free. Yeah I would bet they are just covering themselves.

have to wonder how 20ppm would affect some of our more sensitive members.

take care

  lizard00 said:

That is very interesting!! I had read about the potential of a new accepted gluten-free standard of 20ppm. My question, and Ken I'm asking you because you are our resident chef... what's with that? If it's such a minute scale, why bother? or is that strictly a CYA amount to cover CC?

[kbtoyssni]

They have to pick some non-zero limit so it's testable. 0ppm is untestable. The testing method will show if the food has less than 20ppm or greater than 20ppm. Of course, it's possible to test to 2ppm, but the cost of that level of testing would probably make it impractical for companies. While I also only want a gluten-free label on foods that are 0ppm, I do understand that companies (and the government) have to make decisions based on cost and potential for harm. If they make it a lower ppm, no company will spend the money and there's no benefit to the labeling law. If they make it 20ppm, most companies will comply and 99.999% of celiacs will be safe. That's corporate america - everything's a trade off between costs and benefits.

[kenlove]

thanks for the info -- there is still something wrong with thinsg being labeled as they are.

gluten free should be gluten free.

Maybe of hte public knew the governments rules concerning how much rat hair and other things are allowed in processed foods, maybe things would start to chang.

  kbtoyssni said:

They have to pick some non-zero limit so it's testable. 0ppm is untestable. The testing method will show if the food has less than 20ppm or greater than 20ppm. Of course, it's possible to test to 2ppm, but the cost of that level of testing would probably make it impractical for companies. While I also only want a gluten-free label on foods that are 0ppm, I do understand that companies (and the government) have to make decisions based on cost and potential for harm. If they make it a lower ppm, no company will spend the money and there's no benefit to the labeling law. If they make it 20ppm, most companies will comply and 99.999% of celiacs will be safe. That's corporate america - everything's a trade off between costs and benefits.

[lizard00]

Yeah, I agree. Free should be free. Another reason why corporate annoys me.

  Quote

Maybe of hte public knew the governments rules concerning how much rat hair and other things are allowed in processed foods, maybe things would start to chang.

That is hilarious and totally disgusting at the same time!!! I think if people knew what was allowed in the majority of our foods they would be in outrage! Especially if people took the time to educate themselves on what a lot of these chemicals in our food do to our bodies... can you imagine??

[Takala]

Perhaps if and when the proposed newer labeling laws go into effect ( shudder... ) companies could still be allowed to state on the label that they manufacture the product in a dedicated facility, for example.

I am thinking of the controversy with milk labeling. Some consumers want milk produced from cows who are not treated with artificial growth hormones. Some dairy producers have dairy cows which are ... not treated with artificial growth hormones. You'd think this would be a nice marketing niche, and they could just ... label the milk or cream or yogurt

"not produced from cows treated with hormones" . And everybody could buy what they wanted. Cheap milk or ... healthy milk from healthier cows. Instead, occasionally in certain states the dairy producers who do use the growth hormones try to either change the state's laws or keep trying to get the Federal Government to issue new regulations saying that the individual states cannot allow this type of labeling. Or at least they have to put a disclaimer on it. In my state, so far, they've beaten these types off and the milk is allowed to be labeled "produced without the hormones " but it also carries this dumbo statement "there is no proof that the milk produced with hormones has any effect upon human health."

Well that, in itself, is controversial and may or may not be true, but it assumes the government values "health" over "quantity" and that the consumer is too dumb to make a value judgement about what the cows should be going thru to make the milk in the first place.

What I really would NOT want to see happen, is that certain OTHER statements on the labels we use to access risk be denied because they are thought to be an "unfair" marketing advantage disguised as fake concern for scientific statistics on parts per million vs. any detectable levels.

Dedicated facilities which don't allow any wheat on the premises probably have at least a slightly lower risk of cross contamination.

And I still would want food that is wheat family sourced LABELED as wheat family sourced, even IF all the gluten is supposedly out of it.

As in no more of this distilled barley grain mash byproducts from brewing sneaking into everything under the guise of "NATURAL FLAVORS." If the Natural Flavors could be wheat family sourced, it should say "could be wheat sourced" on the label and let the cosumer decide.

[tarnalberry]

if you're going to say that something isn't in a product, you have to document it. if, in the case of rBGH, it's something that has to be added, and you can merely document that it's not been added, then there's that. if, in the case of gluten on non-dedicated lines, it's something that has be tested for, it CANNOT BE 0PPM. that is not a testable requirement. if you make that demand, you will have no labeled gluten free food, because our food supplies aren't entirely separated, testing will be required, and it can't be tested for. it's one of the practicalities of our reality.

[kenlove]

Oh I understand -- just wish it was not that way.

  tarnalberry said:

if you're going to say that something isn't in a product, you have to document it. if, in the case of rBGH, it's something that has to be added, and you can merely document that it's not been added, then there's that. if, in the case of gluten on non-dedicated lines, it's something that has be tested for, it CANNOT BE 0PPM. that is not a testable requirement. if you make that demand, you will have no labeled gluten free food, because our food supplies aren't entirely separated, testing will be required, and it can't be tested for. it's one of the practicalities of our reality.

[psawyer]

Ken, I also wish the science was perfect and zero content could be proven. But, people have explained how reality intrudes and prevents that which we all dream about.

A claim which is meaningful must be verifiable. To be verifiable, there must be a test. All tests have a lower bound of detectability, and that can never be zero. This is reality, so get used to it. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it.