This So Totally Pissed Me Off!

[loco-ladi]

So I drove the 60 miles to my "local" health food store to see if they had improved their selection, good news is well, yes they did.

So I am looking along their fully loaded (with one box of each) 4 foot shelf for some items to try so see if I like and found a few.... 2 of the more promising ones were a coupld boxes of flavored crackers (smokehouse and cheddar are the ones I picked out) and in big bold highlighted words said "GLUTEN FREE" right there on the front of the package, awesome I missed my flavored crackers!

I take one box to work with me as a snack on the train, soooooo looking forward to it too!

As I am sitting there eating them I happen to set the box down "backwards" so I am now seeing the back of the box....

as I travel up the "big bad hill" at a grand old sped of 12 mph I have a few moments and since I am enjoying the crackers I decide to see what kind of flour they used....

thats when I see it!

"this product is regularly sampled to ensure the gluten content does not exceed 20ppm"

WHAT THE @#$%^&*

this was from an american company and I was SURE american rules stated gluten free meant ZERO!

Do we now have to read the back of the gluten free packages as well?

[MaryJones2]

20PPM is now considered gluten-free under the US labeling laws that are set to go into effect later this year. For those of us who are affected by small amounts of gluten this will indeed make our lives more difficult. The change of the Rice Dream label is a perfect example of this.

[tarnalberry]

we've had a number of discussions about this in the past, and I'm sure that a search will find some of them. the short of it is that a label statement called out by a law like that has to be testable. "absolutely no gluten" is not a testable (or even scientific) number. so, there was a fair amount of time put into determining what number was testable at cost affordable levels without harming the majority of celiacs.

there are a number of scientific studies that suggest 20ppm does not cause symptoms, villi changes, or serology changes in the vast majority of celiacs, and it is a level that was testable in a relatively cost-affordable range.

it never meant that even a celiac who didn't react to an item at 20ppm could eat dozens of servings of a food at that level. 20ppm is a concentration, not a total sum exposure.

[aikiducky]

One more thing - if the ingredients are gluten free, it's also quite possible that it actually is zero gluten. Zero is less than 20 ppm... but they wouldn't put zero on the box because it's too hard to prove.

Pauliina

[psawyer]

This product is regularly sampled to ensure the gluten content does not exceed 20ppm.

If I had a choice between two packages labeled "gluten free" and only one of them had this statement, this is the one I would choose! This is not bad news--it is very reassuring news, as I read it.

There is no accepted rule today in the USA on the meaning of "gluten-free." The FALCPA legislation calls for the FDA to propose one by 2008, and there is some activity, but anybody can place a "gluten free" label on whatever they consider to be gluten-free.

Whatever rule is developed will almost certainly apply only to gluten intentionally included in the product.

Yet here is a manufacturer who regularly tests for contamination, and is prepared to say so on the package. And a test at 20ppm is pretty accurate for this purpose. You can never test for zero, and the closer to zero you get the more it costs (the increase is not linear).

As I said, to me this is good news, and I would be celebrating, not complaining. I mean it.

[Ursa Major]

This is where I prefer the German labeling system. If it says, "Suitable for those on a gluten-free diet", it means that it might contain traces of gluten, or has wheat starch in it (and it will always clearly label ALL ingredients). If it says "Gluten Free", that means that there is zero gluten in it.

I do NOT like it when it says 'Gluten Free' on the box, and then it says in the back that it may contain gluten after all, at a low level. I think that is deceitful.

[psawyer]

I do NOT like it when it says 'Gluten Free' on the box, and then it says in the back that it may contain gluten after all, at a low level. I think that is deceitful.

That is NOT what it says. Would you prefer that they did not test for CC? Remember, you cannot test for zero, ever.

[Ursa Major]

That is NOT what it says. Would you prefer that they did not test for CC? Remember, you cannot test for zero, ever.

I know it says

"this product is regularly sampled to ensure the gluten content does not exceed 20ppm"

What I read in that is, that some of the ingredients or processing methods might be questionable. Because if you put NO ingredients in that could possibly contain gluten, and you make the product in a dedicated gluten-free facility, without risk of cc, then you can claim it is gluten-free. And actually mean it.

If you use ingredients you have no control over, have a facility that also produces wheat products or worse, has shared lines, you should use the above quoted line, but also not put 'gluten free' on the front of the box, but rather, 'suitable for those on a gluten-free diet'.

Then people would KNOW that it MAY contain gluten and if they react won't be wondering why and looking elsewhere for the culprit. And it is true, most people wouldn't react. And it is good they test their product.

We can disagree on this, which is fine. But you won't change my mind on the matter.

[tarnalberry]

What I read in that is, that some of the ingredients or processing methods might be questionable. Because if you put NO ingredients in that could possibly contain gluten, and you make the product in a dedicated gluten-free facility, without risk of cc, then you can claim it is gluten-free. And actually mean it.

you can't. not legally. because saying that requires you be able to test it. not logically infer it. but empirically test it. since the tests can't get that low, it can't be said.

[home-based-mom]

That is NOT what it says. Would you prefer that they did not test for CC? Remember, you cannot test for zero, ever.

With all due respect, according to loco_ladi's post, that is EXACTLY what it said. I agree with Ursa. If they are going to boldly emblazen "GLUTEN FREE" on the front and then on the back tell you that well, not really gluten free but not more than 20 ppm, that is deceitful. It would be better to not say anything on the front and make the truth statement on the back. It's either gluten free or it isn't, and in this case, it isn't.

[psawyer]

We don't know that is isn't gluten-free.

What we do know, and all we know, is that they routinely test using a test that has a detection threshold of 20ppm. Zero is less than 20ppm.

I have checked out the gluten free facility that is immune to cross contamination. It is a joint venture between the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.

Nothing is immune to cross contamination. Crops are grown out of doors, and so are wheat, rye, oats and barley. You may not intentionally bring gluten in the door, but can you guarantee that no employee has bread crumbs on their clothing? Did the trucker who delivered the corn eat a donut on his way there, and then touch the load? Did you buy something from another supplier? Do you trust them on these same issues? I don't.

I would rather trust a supplier who recognizes that cross contamination is everywhere and tests for it, than one who does not accept this and wants me to take it on faith that they "know" that their product "cannot" contain any gluten.

Believe whatever you want. I know what I believe and what I don't. Make your own decision.

[home-based-mom]

Believe whatever you want. I know what I believe and what I don't. Make your own decision.

I choose to believe that what they posted on the back of the package is truthful and what they posted on the front was not. Kinda reminds me of "bait and switch."

The issue here is not the degree of gluten free-ness. The issue is claiming that it is (not true) then admitting that well it might be, but no matter what it at least almost is. Sheesh. Just leave the big neon claim off the front of the box and be truthful on the back. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with that.

[psawyer]

Zero is less than twenty. Both statements can be true. I'm done here.

[Rachel--24]

If I had a choice between two packages labeled "gluten free" and only one of them had this statement, this is the one I would choose! This is not bad news--it is very reassuring news, as I read it.

I feel the same.

I am no longer gluten free (as of 6 months ago)...however, IF I were still on the diet I would feel better about purchasing a product labeled "Gluten Free" that is routinely tested for CC....over a product that is labeled "Gluten Free" but is not tested.

There is no guarantee that the product with the bold label of "Gluten Free" (and no mention of routine testing) IS actually 100% gluten free. How can they know that the product contains ZERO gluten when

A. No such test exists

B. They are not testing the product at all

In reality, the product that is routinely tested for CC may be safer than the one that does NOT make the statement

"this product is regularly sampled to ensure the gluten content does not exceed 20ppm".

Personally, I do not see this as deceitful labeling....quite the opposite actually.

[home-based-mom]

I feel the same.

I am no longer gluten free (as of 6 months ago)...however, IF I were still on the diet I would feel better about purchasing a product labeled "Gluten Free" that is routinely tested for CC....over a product that is labeled "Gluten Free" but is not tested.

There is no guarantee that the product with the bold label of "Gluten Free" (and no mention of routine testing) IS actually 100% gluten free. How can they know that the product contains ZERO gluten when

A. No such test exists

B. They are not testing the product at all

In reality, the product that is routinely tested for CC may be safer than the one that does NOT make the statement

"this product is regularly sampled to ensure the gluten content does not exceed 20ppm".

Personally, I do not see this as deceitful labeling....quite the opposite actually.

I think you and Peter are happy in a world of shades of gray and I am happier in a world of blacks and whites. Gluten Free means gluten free - no gluten, not even 20ppm. If you can't guarantee NO gluten then don't shout GLUTEN FREE on the front of the box.

I totally understand having more confidence in a tested product than in an untested one. The problem is shouting GLUTEN FREE on the front of the box and then on the back of the box explaining that gluten free might not really be gluten free at all, but only slightly gluten contaminated. As I said, put the statement on the back if the box because it is the open truth. Leave the enticing come hither teaser off the front.

[Tim-n-VA]

My understanding is that in the US there is no standard for calling something gluten free. There are regulations pending but none implemented yet.

If that is still the case (I don't follow that issue closely), the labeling makes sense to me. Label something gluten-free, explain what you mean by that. That will allow me to make a decision.

[momandgirls]

Psawyer - You said you were done and maybe you aren't reading this thread anymore...but...just in case you are...I wanted to tell you I completely and totally agree with you - you were getting a bit beat up here so I just wanted to let you know that there are some of us (I'm assuming I'm not the only one) who agrees with you but just didn't speak up on the subject.

[Mango04]

I think you and Peter are happy in a world of shades of gray and I am happier in a world of blacks and whites. Gluten Free means gluten free - no gluten, not even 20ppm. If you can't guarantee NO gluten then don't shout GLUTEN FREE on the front of the box.

I totally understand having more confidence in a tested product than in an untested one. The problem is shouting GLUTEN FREE on the front of the box and then on the back of the box explaining that gluten free might not really be gluten free at all, but only slightly gluten contaminated. As I said, put the statement on the back if the box because it is the open truth. Leave the enticing come hither teaser off the front.

No box could possibly ever say "gluten free" if they went by black and white standards. It would be legally and scientifically impossible.

[ravenwoodglass]

If anything stresses the need for us to consume more whole foods and less processed stuff this thread does. Personally I would just like clear ingredient labels stating what the ingredients are derived from with less chemical speak. I am very sensitive and don't want barley, for example, hidden in flavors just because it 'tests' out in the finished product at less than a certain percentage. Give me a clear label with all ingredients listed and with any CC issues listed on the back, like with peanuts or other allergins. Then let me decide how much risk I want to take.

[Rachel--24]

No box could possibly ever say "gluten free" if they went by black and white standards. It would be legally and scientifically impossible.

Exactly.

I think you and Peter are happy in a world of shades of gray and I am happier in a world of blacks and whites. Gluten Free means gluten free - no gluten, not even 20ppm. If you can't guarantee NO gluten then don't shout GLUTEN FREE on the front of the box.

How many products are on the market with the words GLUTEN FREE on the front of the box?? Can ANY of them guarantee that there is ZERO gluten in the product?? No they CANT....because they are unable to test for ZERO gluten.

When you purchase any of these products you are taking their word for it....each and every time. I prefer to support a company that goes out of its way to do the testing. There is no way to test for ZERO gluten...under 20ppm is the best they can do and if a company makes this statement I trust that they are doing all they can do to ensure that their product is safe.

As previously stated 20ppm may in fact be ZERO gluten.

I am happier in a world where I can read the labeling and get the most info. about the product before making my decision.

[JNBunnie1]

If anything stresses the need for us to consume more whole foods and less processed stuff this thread does. Personally I would just like clear ingredient labels stating what the ingredients are derived from with less chemical speak. I am very sensitive and don't want barley, for example, hidden in flavors just because it 'tests' out in the finished product at less than a certain percentage. Give me a clear label with all ingredients listed and with any CC issues listed on the back, like with peanuts or other allergins. Then let me decide how much risk I want to take.

I agree with you here, more disclosure of plain ingredient listings would be great. And, if the 'black and white' crew were to have it their way, absolutely nothing in our stores would be labeled as 'gluten free', because there is no test that says '0'. Even Bob's Red Mill only uses an Elisa gluten assay, it doesn't test to '0'. So, if we were to determine that the term 'gluten-free' can only mean that something has been PROVEN to have zero gluten, then noone would be able to use the term. I'm sure everyone trusts companies like Enjoy Life and Erewhon and Kinnikinnick, but even they would no longer be able to market their stuff as gluten free. Perhaps we should give more respect to companies that keep their food safe, tell you how they do so, test their stuff to the best of their ability, and even support the Celiac organizations.

[home-based-mom]

The obvious solution is to not label anything GLUTEN FREE if it cannot be verified. Everyone seems to agree that it cannot be verified, so don't label the product - or any product - GLUTEN FREE. That is as simple and easy and clear and plain and doable and black and white as possible. Continue to put the 20 ppm or less statement on the back - or even on the front. There is nothing wrong with that. And market it all over the internet and everywhere else that way. Nothing wrong with that, either.

As far as the statement that both statements on the box are true, that can happen in only one case, which would make the one on the back of the box redundant and unnecessary. In all other cases, the statements conflict.

To borrow from mathematical logic:

Let the statement on the front of the box be A. A=0 (gluten free)

Let the statement on the back of the box be B. B<20.

A=B iff (if and only if, for those of you who forgot high school math) B=0

But B has an infinite number of values greater than 0 but still less than 20, and for all of those other values, for that product and all other products, only B can be true. A is false. Therefore the statement GLUTEN FREE is false and misleading and deceptive and should not be on the box. ONLY B is true and ONLY B should be on the box.

No one should be uncomfortable with that. Everyone should be uncomfortable with a box that has conflicting statements, but apparently only 2 of us are.

Sigh.

[ShayFL]

I have purchased two items so far that in big letters said "gluten free" on the box. One was a lentil pasta and the other some almond/rice based crackers. Before I actually cooked/decided to eat them I read the whole box only to find "processed in a facility that also processes wheat". So I threw them out. It did piss me off, but then I realized I learned something. You can only trust what you make yourself. So now I am sticking to "whole foods" and Bob's flours/grains only. No sugar because a. it isnt that good for you and b. none of them are gluten free that I have found. And before gluten-free I would only use small amounts of the "raw cane juice"....no white sugar. So I use a little honey if I need sweetener for cooking or stevia for cold stuff.

It is especially hard for people who either are not comfortable cooking/baking/preparing their own food or simply do not have time. I feel for you guys. I work from home and while it is still a lot of hard work to prepare all of my own food, I am able to do it.

[JNBunnie1]

The obvious solution is to not label anything GLUTEN FREE if it cannot be verified. Everyone seems to agree that it cannot be verified, so don't label the product - or any product - GLUTEN FREE. That is as simple and easy and clear and plain and doable and black and white as possible. Continue to put the 20 ppm or less statement on the back - or even on the front. There is nothing wrong with that. And market it all over the internet and everywhere else that way. Nothing wrong with that, either.

As far as the statement that both statements on the box are true, that can happen in only one case, which would make the one on the back of the box redundant and unnecessary. In all other cases, the statements conflict.

To borrow from mathematical logic:

Let the statement on the front of the box be A. A=0 (gluten free)

Let the statement on the back of the box be B. B<20.

A=B iff (if and only if, for those of you who forgot high school math) B=0

But B has an infinite number of values greater than 0 but still less than 20, and for all of those other values, for that product and all other products, only B can be true. A is false. Therefore the statement GLUTEN FREE is false and misleading and deceptive and should not be on the box. ONLY B is true and ONLY B should be on the box.

No one should be uncomfortable with that. Everyone should be uncomfortable with a box that has conflicting statements, but apparently only 2 of us are.

Sigh.

So...... If nobody gets to say gluten free on their packaging, because there's no way to create a testable standard for that, how much are we going to miss out on (hypothetically)? Like the Rice Chex, for example. I never would've thought to keep checking their brand to see if they'd switched off the barley malt unless they were advertising themselves as gluten free now. And can you imagine being a newbie and not being able to look for those two words? Instead having to read the back of every package that doesn't have 'wheat' in the name of the product? Imagine how much time invested in the cereal aisle alone for most people.

Even if everyone stopped using the term 'gluten-free' (which is kind of a silly argument anyway, since we know they won't) and started using 'no gluten ingredients and produced in what we think is a safe facility for the gluten intolerant', nothing would change. Meaning, the people who actually TEST their stuff will continue to be the most aware, the most invested, and ergo, the most trustworthy. Even if the test can't meet the standard of our definition of gluten-free. And everyone would still be getting screwed by the 'no gluten ingredients' people like Lays that suck at cleaning their equipment in between. I'd be willing to bet most Lays stuff wouldn't pass that test.

[monkeypuss]

kind of scary when you think how easily you could be accidently eating gluten...i read that they add it to black pepper and grated cheese also but because its not much they don't include it on the ingredients...:/