Search the Community

Celiac.com 09/28/2023 - Restaurant server and TikToker, Andrew Lopez, recently shared a video highlighting some of his customer pet peeves, labeling them as "Straw Psychos" and "Gluten Goobers." His latest video dropped Friday, and quickly went viral. In it, Lopez goes off on a profanity-laden rant about customers he feels go over the line with their demands. Lopez's first target is customers who request straws before he even has a chance to place their drinks on the table. He expresses frustration, explaining that serving drinks from a tray requires both hands and asks customers to be patient. Irritated About Constant Gluten-Free Requests The second part of his video is devoted to customers who inquire about gluten-free menu options and protocols. He expresses irritation about the constant requests for gluten-free options, particularly from individuals who don't have celiac disease, a legitimate gluten allergy. He criticizes those who suddenly claim to have a gluten allergy because they are following low-carb diets like keto. He argues that going on a diet shouldn't necessitate the extensive preparation processes associated with gluten-free dishes. While Lopez uses humor to vent his frustrations, his video has generated mixed reactions. Some viewers criticized him for complaining about his customers, while others expressed solidarity with his perspective, especially fellow servers who understand the challenges he faces. Some individuals with actual gluten allergies also supported his comments, acknowledging the annoyance of those who adopt gluten-free diets without necessity. In response to the polarized feedback, Lopez hints at the possibility of creating another video to discuss more customer pet peeves in the future. This video highlights the challenges that restaurant servers face when trying to accommodate various customer requests and preferences, and it has sparked a discussion about customer-server dynamics in the hospitality industry. But even though Lopez goes out of his way to exempt people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity, his video also highlights some of the stereotypical beliefs about people who order gluten-free food, like the idea that they're more sensitive or demanding than other patrons. Are they really more demanding than the average demanding customer? Yes, people can be demanding, but people ordering gluten-free food likely aren't demanding just because they're eating gluten-free. They're likely just demanding to begin with, but so are a lot of folks. At the end of the day, videos like this are good for grabbing attention for the people ranting, but not much else. They don't usually have much positive to contribute to either civility in restaurants, or among this ordering gluten-free food. So, even though they grab our attention, and make the ranters feel better, it's often best to take these overtly public complaints with a grain of salt. Read more at the Dailydot.com

Celiac.com 02/26/2016 - Consumer complaints to the FDA fueled a class action lawsuit claiming that cereal maker General Mills mislabeled gluten contaminated Cheerios as "gluten-free." The recent suit was brought by a Kentucky woman, who alleges that she purchased two boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios labeled as gluten-free, but which actually contained gluten levels more than two times higher than allowed under FDA standards. The consumer complaints led to FDA testing on gluten-free Cheerios. The FDA tested 36 samples of gluten-free Cheerios taken from different manufacturing facilities and lots. The tests found that some "Gluten Free" Cheerios samples contained as much as 43 ppm gluten. Current FDA rules forbid the use of the statement "gluten-free" on any food product with gluten levels above 20 parts per million. General Mills issued a recall on Oct. 5., and the suit was filed in late 2015 in a California federal court, and charges violations of California and Kentucky consumer protection laws. The suit alleges that supposedly gluten-free oats were cross contaminated with ordinary wheat at one of General Mills' processing facilities. Stay tuned for more news on this and other developments on gluten-free labeling and celiac disability claims. Read more at Legalnewsline.com.

Celiac.com 04/24/2017 - The fallout continues from General Mills' recall of nearly 2 million boxes of Gluten Free Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios in 2015, which occurred after workers at a California plant accidentally loaded gluten-free oat flour into trucks that had been holding wheat flour, which contains gluten, and which then contaminated batches of "gluten-free" cereal produced with the grain from those trucks. In comments to the U.S. Ninth Circuit court, plaintiffs representing a proposed class of consumers claimed that a lower court had erred in dismissing their lawsuit on the grounds that the company's recall program made the claims baseless. They asked that the court allow their lawsuit against General Mills to continue. The suit is based on claims that the supposedly gluten-free Cheerios that had been made with the wrong flour, and that the cereal had sickened consumers. Lead plaintiff Christopher Hamilton told the panel that a refund program alone does not moot a claim for damages, as courts have held that, while refund programs do moot restitution claims, they do not moot claims for damages and injunctive relief, such as Hamilton's. "Indeed, in a case based on the exact facts present here, a court in California held that the Cheerios recall program did not moot a consumer's damages claim because the defendants did not satisfy the plaintiff's claims for statutory damages and injunctive relief," said Hamilton. Hamilton, who has celiac disease, brought his suit in March 2016 after buying the supposedly "gluten-free," wheat-contaminated Cheerios. One sample revealed 43 parts per million of gluten, more than twice the legal ceiling for the "gluten-free" label, Hamilton said in his complaint. Still, to the layperson, Hamilton's request for damages and injunctive relief invites questions. First, since the company issued a full product recall, what type of injunctive relief would they be seeking? Second, regarding damages, exactly what type of monetary damages would be claimed? Did these plaintiffs incur medical expenses, missed work or other costs? That is not made clear in these filings. When U.S. District Judge Michael McShane dismissed the original suit in July, he did so based on the fact that General Mills did issue a full product recall. In his statements on the matter, the judge wrote: "Rather than mitigate his damages by accepting General Mills' recall/refund offer, Hamilton is suing General Mills for false labeling, marketing and promotion of the product. Hamilton paints a discreet [sic] manufacturing mishap as a grand scheme of deceptive advertising, marketing and labeling." Judge McShane added, "I find this to be creative at best." But Hamilton says that he should be permitted to amend his complaint to include claims that the recall was delayed, and that the company was aware of complaints from sick consumers as early as July 2015. Hamilton also wishes to include allegations that General Mills deliberately ignored warnings from a dietitian that General Mills gluten-free testing was inferior. The case is Christopher Hamilton v. General Mills Inc. et al., case number 16-36004, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Read more at Law360.com.