Wheat Derived Glucose!

[mountainmom]

I am thrilled to see Nestle declaring glucose as being sourced from wheat. I have long wondered about apparently innocent sugary treats and the corresponding negative reactions. I have a box of chocolates I bought at a Walmart in Alberta Canada. They are Nestle Noir Mousse. The ingredients list glucose (from wheat) and sorbitol (contains wheat). Bravo Nestle and THANKYOU!!!

[psawyer]

Hello, and welcome to the board.

"From wheat" and "contains wheat" are not the same thing.

I might be concerned about the sorbitol. Glucose is highly refined and is considered safe regardless of the source.

Shelley Case, RD, is a source I trust completely on these issues. In her book, Gluten-Free Diet A Comprehensive Resource Guide, she lists as gluten-free and safe for celiacs:

Dextrose;

Fructose;

Glucose;

Glucose syrup;

Lactose;

Maltose;

Sucrose; and, wait for it...

Sorbitol.

Make your own decision. As I said, I trust Shelley Case.

[chasbari]

Hello, and welcome to the board.

"From wheat" and "contains wheat" are not the same thing.

I might be concerned about the sorbitol. Glucose is highly refined and is considered safe regardless of the source.

Shelley Case, RD, is a source I trust completely on these issues. In her book, Gluten-Free Diet A Comprehensive Resource Guide, she lists as gluten-free and safe for celiacs:

Dextrose;

Fructose;

Glucose;

Glucose syrup;

Lactose;

Maltose;

Sucrose; and, wait for it...

Sorbitol.

Make your own decision. As I said, I trust Shelley Case.

Peter,

I have always respected the fact that you are a level headed clear thinker and yet you give cause for concern here. You say Shelley Case is completely trusted and yet you question, at least on a personal level (experience?) her recommendation that sorbitol is completely safe. I know we all have our different levels of sensitivity due to the wide variance of damage we have each encountered and I am inclined to think that blanket statements of "Safe" versus "unsafe" may very well be counterproductive. What is safe and non reactive for you I find might cause a reaction. This makes me doubt my own ability to rightly determine what is safe for me if I am not familiar with the process. Whereas I hate the limitations this has placed on me I would much rather be overly conservative (not panicky, though) in the initial stages. Personally, I have been very strict with vetting all possible exposure to glutens and yet, after two years I still have significant damage. I cannot seem to get my family to understand that we all need to be more careful with anything brought into the house. Because they may be prone to favoring the folks who advocate that all is safe and not to over worry, I am fighting an increasingly difficult up hill battle. I fight the constant temptation to project my particular situation on others and would never want anyone to have to deal with this. But, in light of the social pressures that most have to overcome, I wonder if we shouldn't be more conservative in the early stages and assume anything that might possibly be an issue be treated as if it were. Adding things in later with a relatively clean slate would then clarify reactions.

I have lost my focus and am rambling so I apologize if it seems I am making a mountain out of a molehill...

CS

[cassP]

but i thought Sorbitol was from corn????? and now glucose can be derived from wheat?? im confused.. i also always felt good with nestle- cause they explicitly label on some choco chips and some coffee creamers "gluten free".

[ravenwoodglass]

Peter,

I have always respected the fact that you are a level headed clear thinker and yet you give cause for concern here. You say Shelley Case is completely trusted and yet you question, at least on a personal level (experience?) her recommendation that sorbitol is completely safe. I know we all have our different levels of sensitivity due to the wide variance of damage we have each encountered and I am inclined to think that blanket statements of "Safe" versus "unsafe" may very well be counterproductive. What is safe and non reactive for you I find might cause a reaction. This makes me doubt my own ability to rightly determine what is safe for me if I am not familiar with the process. Whereas I hate the limitations this has placed on me I would much rather be overly conservative (not panicky, though) in the initial stages. Personally, I have been very strict with vetting all possible exposure to glutens and yet, after two years I still have significant damage. I cannot seem to get my family to understand that we all need to be more careful with anything brought into the house. Because they may be prone to favoring the folks who advocate that all is safe and not to over worry, I am fighting an increasingly difficult up hill battle. I fight the constant temptation to project my particular situation on others and would never want anyone to have to deal with this. But, in light of the social pressures that most have to overcome, I wonder if we shouldn't be more conservative in the early stages and assume anything that might possibly be an issue be treated as if it were. Adding things in later with a relatively clean slate would then clarify reactions.

I have lost my focus and am rambling so I apologize if it seems I am making a mountain out of a molehill...

CS

I'm with you. When I started the diet I assumed because so many said distilled gluten grains were okay that they were okay for me. They are not. I might as well eat a slice of wheat bread as drink or eat something with distilled gluten grains. Different folks have different levels of sensitivity and IMHO cutting out all sources derived from gluten in the beginning is the best way to go. After healing we can always challenge stuff like distilled gluten and the sugar alcohols and glucose etc that are wheat derived.

[psawyer]

My question about the sorbitol, which was obvious to me but clearly not to others, is: "What have they done to the sorbitol to cause it to 'contain wheat?'" It is an ingredient generally considered safe. Every safe ingredient list I have checked, including the one I cited above, lists sorbitol as safe. What is different about this sorbitol?

Sorbitol is made from glucose. The glucose is listed as "from wheat," not as "contains wheat." Do they then add wheat to the sorbitol after they hydrogenate the glucose to make it?

I doesn't make sense to me.

[cassP]

again, i thought all sorbitol was from corn????

i DO have issues with corn & excess fructose... so the more i avoid products with sorbitol- THE BETTER i feel.... but i do not believe it has gluten- i do not have gluten reactions to it- but more fructosy & fake fat & sugar reactions. its weird since going 100% gluten-free- how much more aware my body is-> like i NEVER reacted to Blue Diamond Nut thins (<20ppm) before- and a month ago- i had some and started itching on my right forearm (where i had suspected DH a year ago). i ALSO have itchy & gluten like reactions to EXCESS corn, High Maltose Corn Syrup, and MSG.... but the sorbitol reactions i get are different.

[T.H.]

just in the realm of sorbitol and whether we should eat it?

Open Original Shared Link

Interesting abstract on celiacs and absorption of sorbitol.

re: your comment, psawyer: The glucose is listed as "from wheat," not as "contains wheat."

I suppose my question - and it really is one, as I have not had a lot of success in finding out the process in extracting/creating glucose - is what ppm of wheat are they using for their definition of something that is 'wheat free'? Because I'd bet it's not 0ppm. Might be, but I doubt it. Don't even know if they actually have a test FOR 0ppm of wheat. And from what I understand, the reason the label is required to at least say something is 'from wheat' at all is because some people who are allergic to wheat react to such small amounts that a wheat derived product is a danger. And that would imply that there IS some small fraction of wheat remaining, which means a really sensitive celiac would have a problem.

I know that many products are listed as safe for celiacs, but it only seems to hold true for 'most' celiacs, not all. Heck, I was just reading a study where they recommended a certain level of gluten as safe for celiacs, even when one or two celiacs in the study reacted severely to that same amount. But because most of the participants were okay, they go ahead and give a recommendation.

[psawyer]

Shauna,

From a legal perspective, the "from wheat" declaration is required in the US under federal law, specifically the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA).

From a scientific perspective, 0 ppm can not be proven, and therefore can not be guaranteed. The best available tests today can detect 5 ppm. They are not cheap, so only specialty gluten-free manufacturers use them (and they include the cost of the test in the price of the product). A less expensive test is available that can detect 20 ppm. Glutino test all products to 20 ppm, even though they have a "gluten-free" facility. Similarly, El Peto test to 5 ppm products leaving their "gluten-free" facility. "Gluten-free" only means you did not intentionally bring gluten into the plant.

Glucose is a highly refined sugar (C₆H₁₂O₆). Regardless of the source from which it is derived, there will be no detectable protein in it. It is a pure sugar. Sorbitol is produced by adding extra hydrogen to the glucose module resulting in C₆H₁₄O₆. The hydrogenation does not add wheat (or any other protein).

I do not understand for the life of me how sorbitol can contain wheat.

If anyone can provide the answer I would be grateful.

Based on my knowledge and experience, I think that Nestle has had made a mistake in describing the sorbitol. As I said in my first post here, make your own decision.

[ravenwoodglass]

I have to wonder if some of us react to more than just the protein in wheat. I know celiac is supposed to be a reaction to the protein, gluten, but perhaps for some the reaction is from more components than just that. That would explain why some of us do react with a gluten reaction to distilled gluten and wheat derived glucose etc.

[Pac]

I have to wonder if some of us react to more than just the protein in wheat. I know celiac is supposed to be a reaction to the protein, gluten, but perhaps for some the reaction is from more components than just that. That would explain why some of us do react with a gluten reaction to distilled gluten and wheat derived glucose etc.

I was wondering that too.

Glucose is a highly refined sugar (C₆H₁₂O₆). Regardless of the source from which it is derived, there will be no detectable protein in it. It is a pure sugar.

Maybe the 'not detectable' is not the same as 'not present'. I do react to this supposedly pure sugar. It shouldn't supprise me as I do react with similar sensitivity to animals - Washing hands several times within 5-6 hours after handling animals is often not enough to protect me. I wear contact lenses and need to watch myself not to touch animals with bare hands at least 6-8 hours before I plan to put on or take out the contacts. (wonder if gluten-filled diet has to do something with my allergy to domestic pets. Wild animals and some domestic individuals are surprisingly 'safe' for me.)

I'm glad most celiacs don't need to be as strict in avoiding gluten but this general belief that what doesn't harm most celiacs can't harm anybody is making my life very difficult sometimes.

[nora-n]

I react to glucose from wheat, but the celiac societies in Sweden and Norway list that as gluten free.

There are differences in sensitivity. Most celiacs here say they tolerate 20-100ppm gluten.

nora

[chasbari]

Back to the sorbitol. Although supposedly safe, and this may be coincidence, when I had my first encounter with it after knowing I had no exposure to it for at least 6 months, my gums bled like crazy after using a particular toothpaste that had it in it. Prior I had only been using straight baking soda. I do wonder if, in fact, my immune system is on hyperdrive as a result of a lifetime of defending against all these dietary triggers. My RA factor numbers were so high when I was finally dx'ed for celiac and I was in the throes of so many autoimmune complications as well. Reactions are swift and painful when I encounter something I shouldn't. Maybe others with lower sensitivities can tolerate the less that 20 ppm but I find that not to be the case for me. Therefore, I would prefer full disclosure of derivations so that I am the one in the position of being able to make the informed choice.

[T.H.]

From a legal perspective, the "from wheat" declaration is required in the US under federal law, specifically the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA).

I do understand that, but I'm assuming it's required because there is a risk of reaction to wheat from very sensitive folks to wheat derived products. Perhaps it is only a higher risk of CC in the factory processing the food, because wheat is present.

From a scientific perspective, 0 ppm can not be proven, and therefore can not be guaranteed. The best available tests today can detect 5 ppm.

I'm aware of that, but doesn't that prove my point? If our tests are only detecting 5ppm or below, then there may indeed be 1-4ppm of gluten in a product, even when highly refined. Yes, the vast, vast majority of us don't have an issue with this. But some of us do, including folks who aren't celiac and have deadly reactions to the stuff.

I suppose it's kind of a toss up, to my mind. Scare away some customers who would have eaten this with no problem, and lose their money vs. whatever the risk would be for litigation if someone who is extremely sensitive might get minute traces of gluten, whether due to cc or undetectable levels from processing.

I'm not sure what would be financially more problematic for them, but I'll be honest and say that as one of the crazy sensitive folk, I rather appreciate the honesty, especially in the face of potentially lost business.

[Gutsy Girl]

Back to the sorbitol. Although supposedly safe, and this may be coincidence, when I had my first encounter with it after knowing I had no exposure to it for at least 6 months, my gums bled like crazy after using a particular toothpaste that had it in it.

Oh wow, that's interesting! I was using Trader Joe's toothpaste (trying to avoid SLS), and ended up with bleeding painful gums every time I used it! Maybe there's a connection here. I didn't want to go back to big-brand toothpastes, but I saw no other options. Interesting that someone had a similar reaction. Hmmm....Sorbitol?....

[Marz]

Agree with Peter - the "contains wheat" sounds strange for sorbitol, when it should normally be "From wheat"?

My 2 cents - I'm in South Africa, so our glucose/sorbitol might be from a different source, but Nestle chocolate gives me a sore stomach and other brands of chocolate do not. Nestle doesn't have anything listed that I would have considered unsafe on the chocolate. I have other food intolerances, so it could just be something else causing issues, but this really makes me go "hmmmmmm".

Would be nice to get clarification with Nestle about the sorbitol though.

Thanks for the link Shauna, very interesting! I noticed I was sorbitol/fructose intolerant when I was on gluten a year or two ago. Since going gluten-free I can eat high fructose fruit without a problem, where previously I was getting obvious symptoms from apples, sorbitol containing sweets etc. This makes a lot of sense taking this article into consideration!

[cassP]

Thanks for the link Shauna, very interesting! I noticed I was sorbitol/fructose intolerant when I was on gluten a year or two ago. Since going gluten-free I can eat high fructose fruit without a problem, where previously I was getting obvious symptoms from apples, sorbitol containing sweets etc. This makes a lot of sense taking this article into consideration!

so- are you saying your Fructose Malabsorption got better or went away after some time being gluten free?????????

this would be so great news if it could be the same for me in the future!!! i really hope so, cause this FM diet has been very limiting

[WheatChef]

No matter the source, there's nothing "innocent" about sugary treats. Aside from all of the additional additives they put in those things (such as some of the more toxic food colorants, soy emulsifiers and the cheapest ingredients they can get their hands on) each of those little treats is way more glucose than your body can accommodate in any one eating. That's just from a health perspective as I won't go into Nestle's terrible human rights records. If you don't feel good eating some junk food then there's many different reasons besides potential wheat contamination that can cause it.

[Skylark]

On the board, we understand how distilled vinegars and spirits work, and that traces of protein sometimes make it through the distillation. Vinegar tests gluten-free and is tolerated by most celiacs, but some like Ravenwoodglass very clearly react.

My question is how the protein is removed from the wheat glucose and sorbitol. "Highly processed" is not a very precise phrase. It is virtually impossible to achieve 100% separation of something like starch and protein from a grain. The sugar is probably crystallized at some point, but the brown sugar in my pantry demonstrates that impure sugar crystallizes just fine. What in the process removes the protein, how well is it removed, and how likely are traces to come through the processing?

I have always set wheat glucose foods back on the shelf, because I don't have a satisfactory answer to those questions. It seems like there are plenty of corn, beet, and cane sugar alternatives.