Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

irish daveyboy

New Gluten Free Level Of 20ppm To Be Accepted Wordwide

Recommended Posts

My GI says that some celiacs have a reaction to as little as 0.5 mg. A 20 ppm product would give you that in 25 g. which is one slice of bread.

.

Sorry dilettantesteph,

I missed your post completely, forgive me.

.

If you can get the info from your GI (Medical reference, Medscape, Medline, Wed MD etc)

I would be very interested to read it and prove a theory I had

that for some people a gluten-free Diet is pointless,

because at that level of sensitivity they would always be above the threshold.

.

Even Naturally Gluten Free Items contain Gluten <20PPM but > 5PPM.

so in theory no matter what a person that sensitive ate they would never get better,

Cumulative ingestion of all foods.

.

Best Regards,

David

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

Even Naturally Gluten Free Items contain Gluten <20PPM but > 5PPM.

so in theory no matter what a person that sensitive ate they would never get better,

Cumulative ingestion of all foods.

.

Best Regards,

David

.

I am one of those supersensitive types. What types of naturally gluten free items are you speaking of? I find it hard to believe that fruit, veggies, potatos, plain rice, milk etc have gluten at some level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

Sorry dilettantesteph,

I missed your post completely, forgive me.

.

If you can get the info from your GI (Medical reference, Medscape, Medline, Wed MD etc)

I would be very interested to read it and prove a theory I had

that for some people a gluten-free Diet is pointless,

because at that level of sensitivity they would always be above the threshold.

.

Even Naturally Gluten Free Items contain Gluten <20PPM but > 5PPM.

so in theory no matter what a person that sensitive ate they would never get better,

Cumulative ingestion of all foods.

.

Best Regards,

David

.

Daveyboy......Flawed theory. 99.99% of all foods are naturally gluten free. It is only if they are contaminated with Wheat, Barely, Rye and (Oats to a lessor degree) that you have a problem. I got the testing results to prove even if you are extremely sensitive, a full recovery can and does happen if you are referring to villa damage and other related issues including remission of most other food sensitivities that I had. All the best, Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about actual villi healing or lack of symptoms? I'm very sensitive and stick with mostly whole, unprosessed gluten-free foods like meats, veggies, fruit, nuts, etc.

I've had 2 endoscopies to check my progress in the 3 1/2 years I've been on the diet and both were negative with no evidence of damage. On the other hand, the tiniest amount of CC will make me sick for days.

From my experience, if I truly stick to whole, naturally gluten-free foods, I am symptom free. I wish I could do it exclusively, but I like a little variety. For that, I do best with the specialty gluten-free products. But I do think that there's no such thing as a completely gluten-free processed product. As close as possible, yes, but probably not 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

and apologies, you can all relax !

.

I should have checked over my typing before i submitted the post.

.

it should have read,

Even Naturally Gluten Free Items contain Gluten <20PPM but > 5PPM.

because of contamination of airborne Gluten

so in theory no matter what a person that sensitive ate they would never get better,

Cumulative ingestion of all foods.

.

Now I just need to find the test data of minute traces of gluten in the air

.

which can be caused by threshing on wheat farms,

flour dust from milling operations and in the home.

.

A lot of innocent processed foods, with no gluten listed have minute quantities

(which do NOT need to be declared) these are just called processing aids.

.

Jersey Angel,

Mike M,

Ravenwoodglass

once again apologies (i will look for the reference and quote it)

.

dilettantesteph,

I also have on file somewhere (need to locate that also)

there is no medical evidence that consuming <10 mg of gluten per day will cause any harm to the Mucosa

that's why I'd be very interested in your GI's reference.

.

Best Regards,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I may regret this, but here goes.

Hi Tom,

The annotation for microgram is generally accepted as mcg.

I'm pretty sure it's not.

None of the resources grepped cited here use mcg, tho a few specify ug.

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?qsrc=2...p;search=search

I do believe I've seen mcg used for microgram in literature specifically regarding vitamins and/or minerals, but they're writing for a certain audience.

kg = Kilogram or 1,000 grammes (g)

g = gram or 100 miligrams (mg)

mg = miligram or 100 micrograms (mcg)

Everybody let this sit all day? Really, Seth?

Both times 100 is used, it should say 1000.

It seemed to me that the study I referenced was using 'mg' as the abbreviation for micrograms (and several sources indicate that mg is an acceptable acronym for microgram).

:o:unsure::wacko: What in Sam Hill would they use for milligram???? :huh:

(Oh, and . . ...which sources?)

In context, the article seems to indeed be referring to a tolerable level of micrograms and not to milligrams of gluten. That is, us celiacs may be able to tolerate 6 millionths of a gram daily and not 6 thousandths of a gram.

Betcha it's millligrams ;)

there is no medical evidence that consuming <10 mg of gluten per day will cause any harm to the Mucosa

And there probably never will be since no sensitive celiac in their right mind would sign up for the trial.

Seem to me that over half of our frequent posters would feel harmed by 10mg/day.

Does it need to be visible in a hit-or-miss biopsy to be called harm or can we take ppl's word for it regarding their particular set of glutening symptoms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

just a quick visit, Tom you should get the 'Gotcha award' of course your quite right can't go around dropping zeros.

.

quick search of saved references found this.

.

.

Summary

Background:

The threshold amount of gluten in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My GI is Arthur DeCross. He made the statement about 0.5 mg of gluten being enough to initiate a reaction in some celiacs in a presentation to the Rochester Celiac Support group (Rochester, New York). I don't know if it was from anything in print. I searched a bit and couldn't find anything. I don't have any advanced searching techniques for medical journals. I can't ask him because I don't have another appointment and it is impossible to get GIs on the phone. Sorry not to have anything more concrete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I may regret this, but here goes . . . And there probably never will be since no sensitive celiac in their right mind would sign up for the trial.

By Jove I think you're correct! It should be milligrams and not micrograms. I cheerfully stand corrected.

BTW, per Wikipedia, "The abbreviation μg is often used in scientific literature, but JCAHO recommends that hospitals do not use this abbreviation in handwritten orders due to the risk that the Greek letter μ could be mistaken for an m, resulting in a thousandfold overdose. The abbreviation mcg is recommended instead."

Below source told me 'mg' was an acceptable abbreviation for micrograms:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/af.a...mp;string=exact

The article I referenced spelled both micrograms and milligrams out in several instances and otherwise used mg throughout with no references to mcg.

Here are some articles/studies that attempt to define a tolerable level of gluten:

http://www.celiaccenter.org/celiac/documen...AJCN%202007.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18315587

(that's an abstract - not sure the below link to entire article will function)

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578637_4

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support Ravenwood - and understood you from the beginning.

To me gluten = poison.

I react to even the smallest amount.

I have been ill for too many years and am extremely strict now. And trace amounts add up - I had removed all gluten from my diet, or so I thought. Then found out that the rice milk I was drinking - which was legally listed as gluten free, contained less than 20ppm. I had been baking with it, drinking it, and putting it in my cereal daily.

Once I stopped consuming it and switched to Pacific Brand my symptoms turned around within 2 weeks because I had FINALLY found my last contaminating source.

If a food has 200ppm I would like to know. I also wanted to know if something is made in a dedicated facility or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I support Ravenwood - and understood you from the beginning.

To me gluten = poison.

I react to even the smallest amount.

I have been ill for too many years and am extremely strict now. And trace amounts add up - I had removed all gluten from my diet, or so I thought. Then found out that the rice milk I was drinking - which was legally listed as gluten free, contained less than 20ppm. I had been baking with it, drinking it, and putting it in my cereal daily.

Once I stopped consuming it and switched to Pacific Brand my symptoms turned around within 2 weeks because I had FINALLY found my last contaminating source.

If a food has 200ppm I would like to know. I also wanted to know if something is made in a dedicated facility or not.

So true. I want to know if it is tested and to what level. Both my son and I react to things that are tested to below 5 ppm, so the company says and so I have confirmed with my own testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So true. I want to know if it is tested and to what level. Both my son and I react to things that are tested to below 5 ppm, so the company says and so I have confirmed with my own testing.

What test are you using to confirm that a product has less than 5PPM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What test are you using to confirm that a product has less than 5PPM?

I wouldn't hold up in a court of law. I used the EZ gluten test strip which has a 10 ppm sensitivity, I doubled the sample size which would give it a 5 ppm sensitivity. The positive indicator was very faint which would indicate that it was less than 5 ppm. I am a PhD chemist with experience developing protocol for testing foods for trace impurities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't hold up in a court of law. I used the EZ gluten test strip which has a 10 ppm sensitivity, I doubled the sample size which would give it a 5 ppm sensitivity. The positive indicator was very faint which would indicate that it was less than 5 ppm. I am a PhD chemist with experience developing protocol for testing foods for trace impurities.

So you aren't using the strips according to the manufacturer's instructions, and yet you're claiming that the answers you get are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you aren't using the strips according to the manufacturer's instructions, and yet you're claiming that the answers you get are real?

On the phone the manufacturer told me that they can be used that way. I'm only saying that they agree with the testing done by the company who made the food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...