Us Produced Malto Dextrin Is No Longer Safe

[Oonagh]

I had my first severe attack in over a year. I was sick for days, and couldn't figure out what I ate. I don't vary my diet a lot, so I was really puzzled. Then I had a brilliant idea - not eat, drink!

I had run out of Crystal light & bought Wal Mart's generic without checking the label. The ingredients were totally different, and as I did some research to see if any might have triggered such a bad attack, I read that while US maltodextrin used to be safe, but since corn is in such high demand for ethanol fuel, some manufacturers have started producing it from wheat, like many overseas producers use.

Happily, when I went to the store again, I discovered that on the newer packaging for Crystal light (they had diff flavors with new and old labels) they say Gluten Free in big letters.

I checked other Kraft products, and on a number of things with updated packaging they also had the gluten free labels (where applicable).

I noticed an older post where someone was trying to figure out if the chips she ate made her sick, maltodextrin was one of the ingredients and it may have been the culprit.

It reminded me to check labels more often, after 3 years, I got a bit lazy about it - I guess you can never relax with this lousy disease. My dad has had ulcerative colitis since the 50's and was lactose intolerant (until they removed his colon 4 years ago). I thought he had it bad, but he thinks his was a lot easier to deal with than coeliac.

BTW, if you want to travel to a gluten-free friendly place, Ireland is pretty cool. Coeliacs are a lot more common there and bread etc is readily available. The restaurants frequently have glutenfree options - staff doesn't say "huh what?" when you ask for gluten-free options. My folks local grocery stores have whole gluten-free sections. I stock up when I visit. Their bread is much better than what I have found here.

[cruelshoes]

Maltodextrin is gluten free. If maltodextrin is from a wheat source, it must be declared by law. Even if it is original sourced from wheat, maltodextrin is so highly procesed it is a gluten free ingredient.

Open Original Shared Link

Maltodextrin

Maltodextrin is gluten free. It can be made from a variety of starches, including corn, potato, rice or wheat. However the source does not matter because maltodextrin is such a highly processed ingredient that the protein is removed, rendering it gluten free. If wheat is used to make maltodextrin, "wheat" will be appear on the label. Even in this case, the maltodextrin would be gluten free.

Hope you feel better.

[Oonagh]

Maltodextrin is gluten free. If maltodextrin is from a wheat source, it must be declared by law. Even if it is original sourced from wheat, maltodextrin is so highly procesed it is a gluten free ingredient.

Open Original Shared Link

Hope you feel better.

the gluten-free site I was on (club celiac) said otherwise. I also quit drinking the stuff and my attack cleared up. This kind of conflicting info is why I seldom vary the foods I eat, I am so tired of trying to figure out what really is or isn't safe to eat.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

If they derive maltodextrin from barley (which I THINK is unusual, but am not sure), they would NOT be required to list that on the label.

[happygirl]

FF, you are right - it would be unusual. If it were made from barley or wheat, it wouldn't be considered maltodextrin, according to FDA rules.

Open Original Shared Link

"Maltodextrin ((C6H10O5)n, CAS Reg. No. 9050-36-6) is a nonsweet nutritive saccharide polymer that consists of D-glucose units linked primarily by [alpha]-1-4 bonds and that has a dextrose equivalent (D.E.) of less than 20. It is prepared as a white powder or concentrated solution by partial hydrolysis of corn starch, potato starch, or rice starch with safe and suitable acids and enzymes."

[lovegrov]

Oonagh, there is no question whatsoever that wheat MUST be listed in maltodextrin. This was the law even before the allergen law took effect. The conflicting information you saw is, quite simply, wrong.

richard

[psawyer]

As Laura and Richard have noted, the single word "maltodextrin" on a product sold in the USA must refer to material derived from corn, rice or potato. This has been the FDA rule since at least 1983. Any source other than those three must be explicitly labeled, and that includes barley.

[cruelshoes]

I am glad you are feeling better.

the gluten-free site I was on (club celiac) said otherwise. I also quit drinking the stuff and my attack cleared up. This kind of conflicting info is why I seldom vary the foods I eat, I am so tired of trying to figure out what really is or isn't safe to eat.

The list of foods to avoid on Open Original Shared Linkis riddled with errors. Some examples include distilled vinegar (distillation removes any gluten), andpotato chips (seasonings can contain gluten, but not always). Their forum is chock full of really nasty porn, too - I think I need to go wash my brain out. You would be much better off using the safe/forbidden food lists on this site.

https://www.celiac.com/categories/Safe-Glut...3B-Ingredients/

If they derive maltodextrin from barley (which I THINK is unusual, but am not sure), they would NOT be required to list that on the label.

Regardless of its source, Maltodextrin is a gluten-free ingredient. Processing renders it gluten-free. If is comes from wheat, it has to be labeled as such, but it does not contain gluten.

Open Original Shared Link

Previous questionable ingredients that are now rendered to be gluten-free are the following:

Maltodextrin

Glucose Syrup

Carmel Coloring

Citric Acid

Distilled Vinegars.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

I do see European brands of chocolate list "glucose syrup (from wheat)"--I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that there are celiacs who would react to that, even if it is supposed to be free from gluten.

They do say the same thing about wheat starch--that it is supposed to be gluten-free due to the processing, and in Europe, it is considered safe for celiacs, but aren't there celiacs who DO react to it, thereby indicating that it's not quite as gluten-free as they would like to think?

[cruelshoes]

I do see European brands of chocolate list "glucose syrup (from wheat)"--I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that there are celiacs who would react to that, even if it is supposed to be free from gluten.

They do say the same thing about wheat starch--that it is supposed to be gluten-free due to the processing, and in Europe, it is considered safe for celiacs, but aren't there celiacs who DO react to it, thereby indicating that it's not quite as gluten-free as they would like to think?

Gluten is the protein element of the wheat. If we break down the chemical structure of glucose syrup, it does not contain protein.

"Open Original Shared Link" Shelley Case, author.

page: 53- "Glucose syrups are highly processed and purified in order to separate and remove the protein portion from the starch mixture. .... Although glucose syrup can be made from wheat, the processing renders it gluten free. This has been verified by scientists and research centers in Europe, Australia and other countries using the highly sensitive R5 ELISA tests."

Wheat starch is another animal entirely. It is much less processed than maltodextrin or glucose syrup. I have no doubt that many people react to that. I wouldn't touch it with a 39-1/2 foot pole.

Accuracy of "Gluten-Free" Labels

.

The legal definition of the phrase "gluten-free" varies from country to country. Current research suggests that for persons with celiac disease the maximum safe level of gluten in a finished product is probably less than 0.02% (200 parts per million) and possibly as little as 0.002% (20 parts per million).

Australian standards reserve the "gluten free" label for foods with less than 5 parts per million of gluten, as this is the smallest amount currently detectable.

.

As gluten-containing grains are processed,

more and more of the gluten is removed from them,

as shown in this simple processing flow:

.

Wheat Flour (80,000ppm) > Wheat Starch Codex (200ppm) > Dextrin > Maltodextrin > Glucose Syrup (<5ppm) > Dextrose > Caramel Color

.

Unfortunately, in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet defined the term gluten free as it appears on food labels.

Open Original Shared Link

[Rya]

I just read an article in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that discussed the shortcomings of two types of "highly sensitive" R5 ELISA assays. I'll provide more detailed info should anyone want it, but for those who are very sensitive to gluten, I would completely avoid anything that is derived from a gluten ingredient and rendered gluten-free. Why not be safe? If you are not highly sensitive, then consuming <5-10 ppm will likely not cause a reaction.

There's no evidence to support this concern, but I wonder how much damage celiacs are doing without realizing it. I.e. is consuming 5-10 ppm every now and then an issue even without a reaction? Regardless, though, I think in reality most of us couldn't be much more strict.

Back to the assays, they are developing a new one that can address the shortcomings of the old ones. If I recall correctly, the only shortfall was the ability to measure barley accurately (which was cited to be of most concern with determing if oats are not contaminated) and the protein fraction in ingredients derived from wheat such as dextrins (not maltodextrin).

[Yana]

I was told that maltodextrin, regardless of it's source is "Gluten Free". That Gluten is a protein, and maltodextrin is a sugar. That the reason some celiacs react to maltodextrin, specifically derived from wheat, is because many celiacs are also intolerant of other wheat products. So that, some celiacs and gluten intolerant people, are ok and others are not, it depends what else they're allergic to.

If you react to maltodextrin, the suggestion would be that unless its contaminated by something else, you may just simply be intolerant or sensitve to wheat products, as well as gluten.

[Lisa]

I was told that maltodextrin, regardless of it's source is "Gluten Free". That Gluten is a protein, and maltodextrin is a sugar. That the reason some celiacs react to maltodextrin, specifically derived from wheat, is because many celiacs are also intolerant of other wheat products. So that, some celiacs and gluten intolerant people, are ok and others are not, it depends what else they're allergic to.

If you react to maltodextrin, the suggestion would be that unless its contaminated by something else, you may just simply be intolerant or sensitve to wheat products, as well as gluten.

Open Original Shared Link

Maltodextrin can be derived from any starch. In the US, this starch is usually rice, corn or potato; elsewhere, such as in Europe, it is commonly wheat.

If it is maltodextrin is derived from wheat, it must be listed by US labeling law.

[new2glutenfree2]

I do see European brands of chocolate list "glucose syrup (from wheat)"--I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that there are celiacs who would react to that, even if it is supposed to be free from gluten.

They do say the same thing about wheat starch--that it is supposed to be gluten-free due to the processing, and in Europe, it is considered safe for celiacs, but aren't there celiacs who DO react to it, thereby indicating that it's not quite as gluten-free as they would like to think?

I HAD MY FIRST REACTION FROM ANYTHING IN A COUPLE YEARS, AFTER EATING 1 MENTOS. I WAS SOOOO SICK, IN FETAL POSITION EVEN, THEN THE D STARTED. IT WAS HORRIBLE. AFTER I STARTED FEELING SICK, I READ THE PACKAGE AND IT SAID "GLUCOSE SYRUP", DERIVED FROM WHEAT. SO WHO EVER SAYS THAT YOU WONT GET SICK FROM IT NEEDS TO TRY ONE AND SEE! DON'T EAT MENTOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kenlove]

Guess I just don

[lovegrov]

Of course everybody is free to do what they will, but the fact is caramel color simply is NOT made from wheat or barley. And maltodextrin almost never is except sometimes in Europe. And no, wheat is not cheaper than corn, especially since the price of corn has plummeted.

richard

[missy'smom]

Not long ago I learned that glucose syrup in Japan is sometimes drived from barley.

[darlindeb25]

Open Original Shared Link

Sept 22, 2009

CORN HIGHER THAN WHEAT; AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION IN THE GRAIN MARKET. September Options Close in New-York at 63 1-2 Cents Per Bushel, 3 3-8 Cents Higher than September Wheat -- Little Excitement, However, and the Sales Small -- Enormous Sales of Wheat -- "Shorts Running to Cover" the Explanation. CORN HIGHER THAN WHEAT

Guess I just don

[Gemini]

Open Original Shared Link

Sept 22, 2009

CORN HIGHER THAN WHEAT; AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION IN THE GRAIN MARKET. September Options Close in New-York at 63 1-2 Cents Per Bushel, 3 3-8 Cents Higher than September Wheat -- Little Excitement, However, and the Sales Small -- Enormous Sales of Wheat -- "Shorts Running to Cover" the Explanation. CORN HIGHER THAN WHEAT

I totally agree, and I have said all along, the laws are only as good as the policing of them.

This is the truest statement--5-10ppm is too much for some of us, and the others, are you really doing yourself a favor by still eating the gluten?

I think the medical profession has pretty much established at what level gluten will trigger an autoimmune reaction. Most of the books written by the top Celiac experts have discussed this. I will have to look the number up to make sure I have the correct information but I am sure that at 5 PPM, gluten is not a problem.

This is why most of the proposed labeling laws are zeroing in on anything less than 20 PPM as the standard. If they don't know at what level you would react and what is safe, there would be no point to labeling laws.

[OptimisticMom42]

I just feel safer buying foods that don't come with a label like bananas

or with simple ingredients like Natural Peanut Butter, ingredients: peanuts, salt

or Rice Cakes, ingredients: brown rice.

Maybe I'm being silly but all my parts are working and feel great for the first time in awhile.

[missy'smom]

I think the medical profession has pretty much established at what level gluten will trigger an autoimmune reaction. Most of the books written by the top Celiac experts have discussed this. I will have to look the number up to make sure I have the correct information but I am sure that at 5 PPM, gluten is not a problem.

This is why most of the proposed labeling laws are zeroing in on anything less than 20 PPM as the standard. If they don't know at what level you would react and what is safe, there would be no point to labeling laws.

I think our immune systems are smarter than the medical professionals! 5ppm is too much for many of us and clearly triggers reactions.

[darlindeb25]

I think our immune systems are smarter than the medical professionals! 5ppm is too much for many of us and clearly triggers reactions.

Exactly!

I think the medical profession has pretty much established at what level gluten will trigger an autoimmune reaction. Most of the books written by the top Celiac experts have discussed this. I will have to look the number up to make sure I have the correct information but I am sure that at 5 PPM, gluten is not a problem.

It hasn't been proven..no one knows for sure, they are just guessing. They do not know enough about gluten intolerance yet to know how much is too much. Celiac disease is not the end all of gluten intolerance. We who are not diagnosed with celiac, have issues too, and we develop autoimmune diseases too...we don't want gluten in our lives at all. Damage to villi is not the only damage that gluten causes. Ask my neuro about my neuropathy, and how I got it.

At any rate, there are those of us who do know not to eat products containing gluten, and we do react to the tiniest amount. We definitely can prove any scientist wrong who thinks we can have that 20ppm, or 10ppm, or even 5ppm.

[lovegrov]

I think the medical profession has pretty much established at what level gluten will trigger an autoimmune reaction. Most of the books written by the top Celiac experts have discussed this. I will have to look the number up to make sure I have the correct information but I am sure that at 5 PPM, gluten is not a problem.

This is why most of the proposed labeling laws are zeroing in on anything less than 20 PPM as the standard. If they don't know at what level you would react and what is safe, there would be no point to labeling laws.

There are those out there demanding "zero" as the standard even though there's no way to measure such. Some claim they can't tolerate even, say 3 ppm, but can't tell us how that can be measured or measured at a cost that still makes food affordable.

Crickets chirping.

richard

[Tim-n-VA]

...

It hasn't been proven..no one knows for sure, they are just guessing. ...

I agree with the first two parts of that, but the third is just wrong. There have been several studies where confirmed celiacs were given controlled amounts of gluten with before and after endoscopy results compared. Of the studies I've read about, most used small samples for short periods (one had about 40 people for three months). The results show that most people in the test showed no change in their villi on small amounts of gluten but there were outliers who had significant damage on small amounts and ones who had no damage on relatively high amounts.

Just because a study hasn't resulted in definitive answers doesn't mean any generalizations are "just guessing".

[darlindeb25]

I agree with the first two parts of that, but the third is just wrong. There have been several studies where confirmed celiacs were given controlled amounts of gluten with before and after endoscopy results compared. Of the studies I've read about, most used small samples for short periods (one had about 40 people for three months). The results show that most people in the test showed no change in their villi on small amounts of gluten but there were outliers who had significant damage on small amounts and ones who had no damage on relatively high amounts

See, another study on celiac's alone, that doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. I am not celiac, or so some say, yet I am gluten intolerant, and this study means nothing to me. Maybe the little bit of gluten they eat does not bother their villi, but that same amount of gluten makes me very ill, and it effects me in different ways. Gluten also attacks the brain, not just villi, until they start testing the effects of gluten on those of us who are not celiac, then these studies are useless for us. It is "just guessing" for those of us who are super sensitive.

A friend of mine was in one of those controled studies, with Dr. Green doing the testing. This man got very ill, nearly died, and it has taken him over one year to start looking close to healthy, and he is still pastie looking...how about the ones in the study that did have problems...they don't matter?