-
Welcome to Celiac.com!
You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.
-
Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):
-
Get Celiac.com Updates:Support Our Content
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'contamination'.
-
Celiac.com 06/11/2024 - The findings from a study conducted by Moms Across America shed light on concerning levels of glyphosate, pesticides, low mineral content, and even gluten in gluten-free products. This is particularly relevant to individuals with celiac disease and gluten intolerance, a population that relies on gluten-free products to manage their condition. The study tested 46 samples of organic and non-organic gluten-free food products, including bread, pasta, crackers, snacks, flour, dessert mixes, and chips, for glyphosate/AMPA, 236 pesticides, gluten, and mineral content. The results revealed that 44 out of 46 samples tested positive for glyphosate, a known contributor to gluten intolerance. What's more alarming is that 21% of these samples exceeded the EU threshold for acceptable glyphosate residues. Notably, the highest level of glyphosate was found in Banza Chickpea Pasta, reaching a staggering 2,963 ppb, the highest amount ever recorded in human food by the lab. Additionally, the study identified 2,4-D, the active chemical in Agent Orange, as the most prevalent pesticide detected in the samples. Moreover, three of the samples tested, including products made by Trader Joe's, Simple Mills, and Made Good Foods, registered gluten levels above the FDA's allowable limit of 20 ppm, posing a risk to individuals with celiac disease who rely on gluten-free products. Key Findings - Gluten in "Gluten-Free" Products: Trader Joe's Everything Bagel registered 269.8 ppm gluten, over ten times the level deemed safe by the FDA. A product recall should be issued for this product, as it exceeds the FDA's level of 20 ppm for gluten-free products. Three of the samples, namely Simple Mills Brownie Mix, Made Good Foods Soft Baked Double Chocolate Cookies, and Simple Mills Almond Flour Crackers registered gluten levels above the 20 ppm allowed by the FDA (31.7 ppm, 56.1 ppm, and 59.4 ppm, respectively) - Each of these products were certified gluten-free by the Gluten-Free Certification Organization (GFCO), which certifies products as gluten-free if they are below 10 ppm. A product recall should be issued for these products, as they exceed the FDA's level of 20 ppm for gluten-free products. Three additional samples had levels of gluten above 10 ppm: Jovial Foods Spaghetti (10.6 ppm), GoMacro Berry Granola Bar (15.9 ppm), and Shar Pretzels (14.3 ppm). This level of gluten is considered safe for celiacs according to the FDA, however the GoMacro bars and Jovial pastas are also certified gluten-free by the Gluten-Free Certification Organization (GFCO), which means they are breaking the certification rules of the GFCO. Likewise, these products should also be recalled per the GFCO's guidelines for gluten-free certification. Key Findings - Pesticides and Weed Killer in Gluten-Free Products 44 of the 46 samples tested were positive for glyphosate, a known contributor to gluten intolerance. Twenty-one percent tested higher than 10 ppb, the EU threshold for acceptable glyphosate residues. The highest level of glyphosate - 2,963 ppb found in Banza Chickpea Pasta - is the highest amount ever measured in human food by the lab. Gluten-free products that were also organic were not the lowest in glyphosate. 2,4-D, the active chemical in Agent Orange, was the most prevalent pesticide detected. King Arthur’s Gluten Free Flour and Milton’s Sea Salt Crackers had the highest levels of pesticides at 147 ppb and 75 ppb, respectively. The mineral values in all samples were very low based on the FDA Recommended Daily Values and accurate serving sizes per category, well below the 10% of daily value considered sufficient across age and gender. "The glyphosate contamination in these products should set off alarm bells, because those who try to improve gut health by switching to a gluten-free diet may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire," remarked MIT research scientist Stephanie Seneff, author of Toxic Legacy. Zen Honeycutt, founding Director of Moms Across America, states, "The prevalence of glyphosate and agrochemicals in gluten-free food products made for people with conditions such as celiac disease is disturbing for many reasons, especially because it is avoidable. All our policy makers need to do is disallow the spraying of glyphosate and other agrochemicals as a drying agent, as the EU has done, and 80% of our exposure to glyphosate would be eliminated from our diet altogether. We urge food manufacturers to join us in calling for better regulation of the food supply." The low mineral content in all samples further raises concerns about the nutritional value of gluten-free products. With these findings, there is a call for improved regulation of the food supply chain to eliminate glyphosate and other harmful agrochemicals, particularly in products marketed to individuals with conditions like celiac disease. This study underscores the importance of informed consumer choices and the need for transparency and stricter standards in gluten-free food production. For more details on all test results, visit: momsacrossamerica.com Read more at: wkrg.com Join the lively discussion on this topic in our forum. 06/14/2024 - An earlier version of this article mentioned that Made Good Foods Vanilla Cookies were found to contain over 20ppm gluten, but was updated to Made Good Foods Soft Baked Double Chocolate Cookies. This change reflects a change that was made to the original study after we had published this article. 06/18/2024 - Trader Joe's Everything Bagel was also added to this article.
- 67 comments
-
- agrochemicals
- celiac disease
- (and 7 more)
-
A Wedding Night Gone Wrong: The Impact of Gluten Contamination
Scott Adams posted an article in Additional Concerns
Celiac.com 11/16/2024 - The wedding of Blake and Bryce Shoemaker started as a picturesque day filled with love, joy, and excitement. The couple, celebrating their October 2022 nuptials in Joshua Tree, California, planned for an intimate ceremony with close family and friends. However, their magical night took a sharp turn when Bryce, who has celiac disease, accidentally consumed gluten, leaving him sick for much of their wedding night. Blake, now able to laugh about the incident, reflects on what happened and how it strengthened their bond as a couple. The Importance of Gluten-Free Choices Planning a wedding in Joshua Tree presented logistical challenges, especially when it came to ensuring that the cake was safe for Bryce, who has celiac disease. Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder where ingesting gluten can cause severe reactions, ranging from digestive distress to long-term health complications. Because the options in the desert were limited, Blake’s mother took on the responsibility of finding a gluten-free cake. Though her mother believed she had located a gluten-free bakery, upon arriving at the baker’s home, they were met with an environment that was less professional than expected. However, they proceeded to use the cake, assuming it was safe for Bryce to eat. Unfortunately, Bryce unknowingly consumed a cake contaminated with gluten, leading to an unexpected and unfortunate series of events later in the evening. Bryce’s Reaction to Gluten Exposure For those with celiac disease, reactions to gluten can vary significantly from person to person. Some may experience mild symptoms, while others, like Bryce, can have severe reactions even after consuming a small amount. Bryce, after taking just one or two bites of the cake, began to feel nauseous a few hours later. As the evening progressed, his nausea worsened, and he eventually started vomiting. While this was one of the worst reactions Bryce had ever experienced, he remained determined to enjoy the remainder of the evening. Rather than retreating to bed, Bryce stayed with his guests, even bringing a trash can to the center of the room so he could still participate in the afterparty, despite his illness. His ability to persevere and make the most of the situation highlighted his resilience and positive attitude. A Moment That Brought Them Closer Looking back on the experience, Blake reflects on how the incident, though unfortunate, helped them grow stronger as a couple. They had been together for nearly 11 years, having met in the third grade, and this situation was just one of the many challenges they would face together. Blake was heartbroken watching her husband suffer, but she did everything she could to comfort him, sitting by his side and rubbing his back as he dealt with the nausea. Blake notes that moments like these, though minor compared to larger life events, teach couples how to support each other through adversity. They adapted to the situation, showing how a strong relationship can thrive even in the most unexpected circumstances. For them, the takeaway from the experience was how important it is to be there for each other, especially when things don’t go as planned. The Aftermath and Moving Forward After the wedding, Bryce recovered quickly, feeling better the next morning. The couple enjoyed a few more days in Palm Springs before heading off on their honeymoon, making up for the unfortunate incident on their wedding night. Blake shared their story on TikTok, taking a humorous approach to what could have been a much more stressful memory. While the couple is now able to laugh about the incident, it also serves as a reminder of how important it is to thoroughly vet gluten-free products and suppliers, especially for those with celiac disease. Despite the baker’s assurances, the cake contained gluten, leading to Bryce’s reaction. Blake’s mother called the baker afterward, but the conversation did not yield any new information, leaving the family with lingering questions about what went wrong. Why This Story Is Meaningful for People with Celiac Disease For individuals with celiac disease, Bryce’s story is a cautionary tale about the importance of vigilance when it comes to gluten-free food. Even in situations that seem safe, such as ordering from a gluten-free bakery, contamination can still occur. This story emphasizes the need for people with celiac disease and their loved ones to ask thorough questions, research suppliers, and never take chances when it comes to gluten. It also highlights the challenges of living with celiac disease in social situations, particularly at events like weddings, where food is often central to the celebration. Bryce’s determination to enjoy his night despite his illness shows the resilience many people with celiac disease develop as they navigate a world full of potential risks. Ultimately, this story is a reminder that living with celiac disease requires constant awareness, but with the right support and preparation, even difficult situations can be handled with grace and humor. Read more at: people.com -
The Gluten Contamination Study We've Been Waiting For
Jefferson Adams posted an article in Additional Concerns
Celiac.com 10/14/2019 - One of the big debates among people with celiac disease concerns how vigilant celiacs need to be to make sure they avoid gluten. What does science say about gluten contamination in three common scenarios? How careful do you need to be about gluten contamination? For example, how likely are you to get gluten over 20ppm if you share a toaster, pasta water, or slice a cupcake with the same knife used to cut a non-gluten-free cupcake? A team of researchers recently set out to assess three common scenarios where people with celiac disease might reasonably fear gluten contamination. How did the actual risk for each situation measure up? Scenario 1: Water used to cook regular pasta is reused to cook gluten-free penne and fusilli. The gluten-free pasta is then rinsed and served. Scenario 2: Toasting Gluten-Free Bread in an Uncleaned Shared Toaster Gluten-containing bread is toasted in a toaster. Immediately afterward, gluten-free bread is toasted in the same toaster. Scenario 3: Slicing a Gluten-Free and Regular Cupcake with Same Knife The research team included Vanessa M. Weisbrod, BA; Jocelyn A. Silvester, MD PhD; Catherine Raber, MA; Joyana McMahon, MS; Shayna S. Coburn, PhD; and Benny Kerzner, MD. They are variously affiliated with the Celiac Disease Program, Children’s National Health System, Washington, DC, USA; and the Harvard Celiac Disease Program, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA. Their paper titled, Preparation of Gluten-Free Foods Alongside Gluten-Containing Food May Not Always Be as Risky for Celiac Patients as Diet Guides Suggest, appears in Gasterojournal.org. Control samples of gluten-free pasta, bread, and cupcakes all tested below the limit of detection. Samples were individually packaged in plastic bags with randomized sample numbers. To avoid “hot spots” and ensure even analysis, all items were homogenized for analysis. Gluten content was measured with R5 sandwich ELISA (R7001, R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany) which has a limit of detection of 5 ppm gluten by Bia Diagnostics (Colchester, Vermont). All control samples were similarly tested. The team then quantified gluten samples as under 5ppm, 5-10ppm, 10-20ppm, or over 20ppm, and based their confidence intervals upon binomial distribution. Boiling Gluten-Free Pasta in Regular Pasta Water In the first scenario, the team boiled sixteen-ounce packages of gluten-containing Barilla brand penne and fusilli separately in stainless steel pots in fresh tap water for 12 minutes, then removed with strainers. The water was reused to cook Dr. Schar gluten-free penne and fusilli. The team also tested the effect of rinsing some samples of the cooked and contaminated pasta under cold tap water for 30 seconds. The team found that Gluten was detected in all pasta samples cooked in water used for gluten-containing pasta, ranging from 33.9ppm to 115.7ppm. The rinsed gluten-free pasta samples tested at 5.1 ppm and 17.5 ppm detectable gluten. Interestingly, rinsing pots with water alone after cooking gluten-containing pasta was as effective as scrubbing with soap and water to prevent detectable gluten transfer. Toasting Gluten-Free Bread After Non-Gluten-Free Bread In the second scenario, the team toasted regular gluten-containing bread in two rolling toasters in a busy hospital cafeteria at 20-minute intervals, or in one of three shared pop-up toasters. Immediately after toasting the gluten-containing bread, they toasted Dr. Schar Artisan White Bread. Gluten-containing crumbs were visible in all toasters. They team did not clean the toasters. The team found that toasting in a shared toaster was not associated with gluten transfer above 20ppm; the four samples with detectable gluten had levels ranging only from 5.1 ppm to 8.3 ppm gluten. Slicing a Gluten-Free Cupcake with Knife Used on Gluten Cupcake In the third scenario, the team used a knife to slice frosted gluten-containing cupcakes. The knife was then reused to slice a frosted gluten-free Vanilla Cupcake from Whole Foods Gluten-Free Bake House. The knife was then washed in soap and water, rinsed in running water, or cleaned with an antibacterial hand wipe (Wet Ones) and a new gluten-free cupcake was sliced. Both gluten-free cupcakes were analyzed for gluten content. Although 28/30 cupcake samples had detectable gluten transfer, only 2/28 tested over 20ppm. The team found that cutting cupcakes with a knife used to cut frosted gluten-containing cupcakes was associated with low-level gluten transfer even when crumbs were visible on the icing adhered to the knife. All three knife washing methods tested were effective in removing gluten. The team acknowledges the limitations of their study, including small sample size, etc. They are calling for further study to assess best kitchen practices for people with celiac disease who are trying to avoid gluten contamination in shared kitchens. Main Takeaways 1) Some kitchen activities may pose less of a risk of cross-contact with gluten than is commonly believed. 2) Standard washing effectively removes gluten from shared utensils. 3) Cooking gluten-free pasta in the same water as regular gluten-containing pasta is likely okay, as long as the pasta gets rinsed well. 4) Sharing a toaster is unlikely to result in gluten contamination. Read more in Gastrojournal.org Conflict of Interest Declaration: JAS has served on an advisory board of Takeda Pharmaceuticals and received research support from Cour Pharma, Glutenostics, and the Celiac Disease Foundation. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Funding Source: Supported by philanthropic gifts from the Celiac Disease Foundation, Dr. SCHAR USA, and Bia Diagnostics. JAS is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23DK119584.- 70 comments
-
- celiac
- celiac disease
-
(and 4 more)
Tagged with:
-
Celiac.com 08/13/2024 - Gluten Free Watchdog, an advocacy site for people with celiac disease, recently responded to a study by Moms Across America, which claimed that Trader Joe's Everything Gluten-Free Bagels contained nearly 300 ppm of gluten—a controversy that has already led to a class action lawsuit against Trader Joe's. The gluten testing was performed by Health Research Institute (HRI), an ISO17025 accredited lab approved by the FDA, and examined 46 products, including 32 GFCO-certified ones. It found that nearly 15% of the certified products exceeded the 10 ppm gluten-free standard, with nearly 10% surpassing the FDA's 20 ppm gluten-free limit, meaning they cannot be labeled gluten-free and should be subject to a product recall. A recent analysis by Celiac.com uncovered potential issues with GFCO's certification process, which may have contributed to the high failure rate found in the study, and suggests ways to improve the certification program. Gluten Free Watchdog, however, suggests that these findings might be false positives, possibly due to HRI not using an extra protein to prevent non-specific binding during testing. Gluten Free Watchdog tested three different batches of Trader Joe's bagels using two different assays (R5 ELISA and G12 ELISA) with and without a milk additive for protein blocking. They argue that the inconsistent results—depending on whether the milk additive was used—indicate that HRI should rerun their tests with the additive, as their original results might have been false positives. HRI's Response Celiac.com reached out by email to John Fagan, Ph.D., Chief Science Officer at HRI for comment about Gluten Free Watchdog's article, and according to him: "(W)e used the Romer (AgraQuant) G12 ELISA test, exactly according to the Romer protocol. The person who did the lab work is a highly experienced scientist who has decades of experience in conducting ELISA tests. The Romer G12 ELISA is recommended by GFCO as a reliable method. There was nothing about the Trader Joe’s sample that was strange or out of the ordinary and it contained no chocolate and therefore extra protein was not called for." When describing their testing procedure he explained: "We tested, first, the undiluted extract in duplicate. Those tests exceeded the calibration curve. We then made two dilutions of the extract and tested those in duplicate. Duplicates matched in both cases and the two dilutions were quantitatively consistent. That was the value that we reported." Further: "We have the exact sample that we tested before, and have retested it and it still came out positive." Romer, the manufacturer of the AgraQuant G12 ELISA test, supported Dr. Fagan's claims, stating that while the milk additive is an option, it is not mandatory for all tests, and while certain ingredients like chocolate, soy, and oats, may require adding an extra protein during the testing procedure to prevent non-specific binding, they confirmed that no such ingredients were present in the Trader Joe's bagels. Tara J. Miller, Vice President of Marketing at Trader Joe's, however, claims that their tests on the same batch tested by HRI showed the bagels met FDA and GFCO standards for gluten-free labeling (below 10 ppm). When Celiac.com asked Dr. Fagen how his lab could find high gluten in a batch where Trader Joe's found none, he concurred with the possibility of "hot spots" within the sample, which could explain the discrepancy. Why Did Gluten Free Watchdog Test Different Batches? Gluten Free Watchdog's testing did not involve the same batches of bagels tested by HRI. When Celiac.com asked Dr. Fagan for his comment on the Gluten Free Watchdog article he replied with: "I was surprised at the Gluten Watchdog’s article. And the fact that the product contained no chocolate raises questions about their explanation. The obvious explanation for the discrepancy between the Gluten Watchdog’s results and ours is not even considered in their article, namely that they did not test the same sample that we tested. They didn't ask for that sample but we told them that we would be quite happy to set up an opportunity for them to test that sample. I suspect they would have confirmed our result. Also, during our phone call with Watchdog, they did not suggest the modification of the method where extra protein is added." (a recent post by Gluten Free Watchdog disputes this characterization of their contact) The last email we received from Dr. Fagan on this topic further emphasized his position: "We would be willing to share that lot with any lab that wants to test it. We would send multiple blinded samples, one of which would be the sample we tested as being positive and there would be other samples that would be indistinguishable but would be positive and negative. This would test their ability to detect the level of gluten that we found present in the sample and verify whether the sample we tested as positive was positive with their test method. We have decades of experience dealing with conflicting results on lab tests and it is this kind of routine that clarifies things definitively." Unfortunately, Gluten Free Watchdog's posts do not address how HRI found zero detectable gluten in most of the products they tested, including three types of bagels similar to Trader Joe's bagels, one of which also contained brown rice flour and sorghum flour (Canyon Bakehouse Plain Bagels). If HRI's testing required extra protein for accuracy, shouldn't these very similar products have also shown false positives? Every Romer AgraQuant® Gluten G12 ELISA Test Kit Includes Fish Gelatin to Prevent Non-Specific Binding According to the product documentation for the Romer AgraQuant® Gluten G12 ELISA Test Kit, the kits include the following: Package Insert Certificate of Performance 5 standards (0, 4, 20, 80, 200 ppm), calibrated to the Prolamin Working Group (PWG) Gliadin. Gluten G12 antibody coated microwells Ready to use Extraction Solution 5x concentrated Diluent Buffer 10x concentrated Wash Buffer Ready to use Conjugate, Substrate and Stop Solutions 1 sachet of Fish Gelatin The fish gelatin included in the AgraQuant® Gluten G12 ELISA test kit is likely used to prevent non-specific binding. In ELISA assays, non-specific binding can occur when proteins or other molecules in the sample adhere to the microwells in an undesired manner, potentially leading to inaccurate results. Fish gelatin is a commonly used blocking agent in such assays. It coats the surfaces of the microwells that are not already occupied by the specific antibodies, reducing the likelihood that other proteins or molecules from the sample will bind non-specifically to the microwells. This helps ensure that the only significant interactions are between the specific antibodies and the target gluten proteins, leading to more accurate and reliable test results. Do We Accept or Reject the Results of an FDA Accredited Laboratory? Celiac.com believes that Gluten Free Watchdog's recent stance is misguided and deviates from its mission to protect people with celiac disease from gluten exposure. Instead of cautioning people to avoid the products found to contain high gluten levels and possibly calling for their recall and reassessing GFCO's certification standards, Gluten Free Watchdog is creating confusion by questioning HRI's testing protocol and results. Given Celiac.com's understanding of the Romer AgraQuant G12 ELISA test and its testing protocol, and the fact that the Romer test is on GFCO's Approved Kit List, we see no reason to doubt the validity of HRI's results or their testing competence. We continue to recommend that people with celiac disease avoid all products in the study that tested at or above 20 ppm of gluten, and for those who are highly sensitive, products that tested at or above 10 ppm. Read more at: foodriskmanagement.com Join our forum discussion on this topic, and feel free to comment below. 08/19/2024 - Added the section: "The Romer AgraQuant® Gluten G12 ELISA Test Kit Includes Fish Gelatin to Prevent Non-Specific Binding."
- 30 comments
-
- bagels
- contamination
- (and 5 more)
-
Celiac.com 12/21/2017 - After a lot of trial and error we celiacs learn, often the hard way, to eliminate foods that are poisonous to our bodies. Sadly, we often forget about what "goes onto" our skin. Since the skin is the living outer layer of our bodies it absorbs not only water and oils, it also absorbs cosmetics that can be poisonous to our celiac bodies, most specifically those of us afflicted with dermatitis herpetiformis (often called celiac disease of the Skin). Men, before you set this article aside, thinking it's only for women and you are exempt, please read on. One of 133 Americans has a wheat-related allergy according to CNN.com. We have a tendency not to group toothpaste and lip-glosses with cosmetics, and we usually ignore vitamins and medications when researching celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis. We forget to ask our hairdresser what products they are using and whether they contain wheat or gluten, and glibly apply night creams (to absorb into our skin as we sleep) and mud packs that promise similar benefits. Inquiring into the gluten content of cosmetics, I contacted more than twenty leading companies, then I waited. I was discouraged, particularly by the blatant rudeness of some of the responses I received. Meanwhile, I had to learn whether gluten could be absorbed through the skin. Some websites answered that question with a direct "no". Even some physicians responded saying "no". However, since the skin is the largest living organ in the body and it does absorb various oils and emollients, listing gluten-containing components of medicinal and non-medicinal ingredients allows consumers with celiac disease (celiac disease) or wheat allergies to make informed choices when purchasing and/or consuming natural health products. It enables them to avoid gluten in quantities that may trigger adverse reactions. There are numerous articles on dermatitis herpetiformis and celiac disease making claims so contradictory that it is no wonder we are confused. And I'm not talking about accidental ingestion of gluten. Some such articles claim that trace amounts of gluten One article insists that the skin is not going to absorb gluten, even though our skin is a living organism that can absorb suntan lotions, trans-dermal drugs, etc. It is so susceptible to absorption that when you place a slice of onion in your sock you will taste it in your mouth the following day. How can these websites make such contrary claims? The skin absorbs flavors as well as creams containing gluten. On the other hand, "Glutino" had an article on record, written on September 14, 2010, regarding "Hidden Gluten in Health and Beauty Products". It states that if you apply hand lotion that contains gluten and then prepare food you are exposing yourself to accidental ingestion and your food to cross contamination. They suggest a site called: naturallydahling.com, a site that lists gluten-containing ingredients commonly used in cosmetics. Research proving the full extent of how much your skin absorbs is still unavailable, but to those who believe that "what goes on, goes in", the cosmetic industry is full of unknowns. The size of gluten molecules suggests that they may not be able to pass through the skin, but chemicals and technology designed to enhance skin absorption are already present, if not prevalent, in the cosmetic industry. These chemicals are potentially dangerous and often go untested for negative health effects, yet are widespread in lotions, antiperspirants, perfumes and the "Great Mother Market" anti-wrinkle cosmetics. Since the cosmetic industry is self-regulated it is more important than ever to carefully read labels and use natural or organic products whenever possible. If you find yourself reacting to a particular cosmetic, it is possible that you may have an increased sensitivity to gluten, an allergy or even dermatitis herpetiformis. But wait a minute! Aren't we told that gluten cannot pass through the skin? I suffered terribly from the use of an "Anti-Frizz" product for my hair that caused a massive outbreak of dermatitis herpetiformis. I should have read the label all the way down to the end. I would have found, in very small print, "wheat germ oil". When researching for this article, I wrote to the company and mentioned my problems with their product. I received an apology and a sample of their "new and improved" "Frizz-Ease" product. They obviously do not know their own products and the fancy names they use are as confusing to them as they are to me. The "new and improved" product contained Avena Sativa, the Latin name for OAT. I was also told that I likely just had "hives" on the back of my scalp, as oats are still somewhat controversial. Some research suggests that oats in themselves are gluten free, but that they are virtually always contaminated with other grains during cultivation, harvest, distribution or processing. Recent research indicates that a protein naturally found in oats (avenin) contains peptide sequences closely resembling some peptides from wheat gluten. The oat peptides caused mucosal inflammation in significant numbers of celiac disease sufferers. Some examination results show that even oats that are not contaminated with wheat particles may be dangerous. Again, I was told not to introduce oats into my diet, or use oatmeal as a facial mask until I had been free of a dermatitis herpetaformis outbreak for at least a year. Thus far I have not been able to get relief for that long. It seems the celiac or those who suffer from dermatitis herpetiformis {and let's face it, most people suffering from dermatitis herpetaformis have celiac disease} have to apply the rule of "caveat emptor" - Let the buyer beware. Tolerance to gluten varies among individuals with celiac disease and there are limited clinical scientific data on a threshold for the amount of gluten required to initiate or maintain an immunological reaction in celiac disease patients. "Therefore there is no clear consensus on a safe gluten threshold level." The Dermatologist I see at The University of British Columbia Hospital has told me to tell people in restaurants that gluten is poison to my system and I can become very ill from ingesting gluten. They are a little more careful before telling me a dish is gluten free, and hopefully through education the cosmetic industry is going to improve its testing and cease glibly stating things as "fact" when they simply do not know. Industries that produce over-the-counter medications and vitamin supplement, especially those that may contain gluten as a binding agent, should also be scrutinized. We have come a long way, but large challenges are still ahead. One of our biggest challenges is reading the labels on these products. One almost needs to carry a magnifying glass when shopping. Cosmetics, which include hair products, soaps, perfumes and toothpastes also run us into problems, often big, "itchy" problems. The male celiac/dermatitis herpetaformis experience can also include outbreaks from any product that comes into contact with the skin and particularly those that "stay" on the hair or skin. Who would have known that sun tan lotions could contain wheat germ oil? It is difficult enough to eliminate words such as "triticum vulgare" the Latin name of wheat or "wheat germ" containing ingredients! In preparation for this article, I contacted the following companies: Avon, Clairol, Clarins, Clinique, Coty, Covergirl, Estee Lauder, Garnier, John Frieda, John Paul Mitchell, L'Oreal, Mabelline, Marcelle, Neutrogena, Olay, Pantene, Revlon, and companies that go under general all-encompassing headings such as "Life Brand". This can be a daunting task, and "gluten free" and "wheat free" are not the same thing. Some of the things that I learned in this rather massive undertaking include the rule of "Pac Man". Companies are sometimes taken over by bigger companies and when this occurs their rules change. A company that at one time did not test on animals or use machines that were cleaned prior to using products claiming to be gluten free are now glibly adopting the "new bigger and better". I was shocked to find out that some of the containers from the smaller company were still being used after these PAC MAN take-overs, to save on manufacturing costs. And, remember, once several ingredients are combined the "organic" ingredient probably ceases to be "organic". Some women (and men, you are not exempt here) expect to pay a higher price for a luxury brand assuming that the gorgeous bottle of eye cream sold at Saks for $60.00 is going to work better than the $1.99 tube on the clearance rack of a local store. Just ensure the product has not reached its "sell by" date because it may all be psychological. What you have to concern yourself about, as a celiac patient or a person with dermatitis herpetiformis, is whether there is gluten or wheat in that product. Before you splurge on an expensive product take the time to compare it to a similar product from one of their sister brands. Usually an online store (like Drugstore.com) will list the ingredients. Or you can check on a site like "Makeup Alley" which is a great resource, offering numerous reviews and you can ask questions of the extremely knowledgeable posters on this message board. Another great resource is a large paperback book, titled "Do not go to the Drugstore Without Me" written by Paula Begoin. When I purchased the books in 2001 it was in its 5th Edition. NB: This is not a book specifically for celiac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis, but it was in this book that I found out about "Glutamic Acid". It is derived from wheat gluten and is an amino acid that can have water binding properties for the skin. It also explains glycerylesters that form a vast group of ingredients that are a mixture of fatty acids, sugars, and non-volatile alcohols. These fats and oils are used in cosmetics as emollients and lubricants as well as binding and thickening agents. At the back of this book is a list of the companies that do not test on animals and those that do, but again, the PAC MAN Rule applies. I purchased the book for myself, my daughter, and daughter-in-law, specifically because when my daughter was in her twenties she seemed to think she simply must buy her shampoo from the hairdresser because only $45.00 shampoo was good enough for her hair. It was a big eye opener when she moved out of home and had to purchase it herself! I believe that the more we know about beauty products and the beauty industry the wiser our purchases will be. Consider, for instance, the cost of research and development for say, L'Oreal who develop formulas that can be used in Garnier Shampoos ($3.99) and Kerastase shampoo ($29.99) It doesn't take long to realize that it is a good idea to compare products at different ends of the price scale. Sometimes, two products from two different brands will have the same patent number. The difference is in the non-active ingredients, which give it a unique texture, scent and/or color. Also, it is wise to photo-copy, and even apply plastic covering to lists of "safe" beauty products, just as it is wise to keep a copy of "safe" and "unsafe" foods on hand when you go shopping. When you cannot even pronounce some of the words used in foods and beauty products how can you be expected to remember what is safe to apply to your hair and skin? I received a very nice letter from Teresa Menna, Manager at L'Oreal in Quebec who told me that L'Oreal has abolished gluten in the composition of L'Oreal products. However, on reading more literature I find that Garnier is a mass market cosmetic brand of L'Oreal, and L'Oreal is part of the Group P&G. P&G stands for Proctor and Gamble and P&G Beauty brands can be found on the site:_ http://pgbeautygroomingscience.com/product.php {The Company Garnier Laboratories was started in 1906 and acquired by L'Oreal in the 1970's}. I was unaware prior to researching this article that L'Oreal owned Kerastase, or that L'Oreal had purchased the MAC Cosmetic line, or that the KAO Brands Company owns Ban, Biore, Jergens and John Frieda. Here are some of the ingredients you might find in cosmetics that could indicate wheat or gluten: Avena Sativa {Latin name of oat, or "oat" term containing ingredients Hordeum distichon {Latin name of barley, or "barley" term containing ingredients} Hydrolyzed malt extract Hydrolyzed wheat protein Hydrolyzed vegetable protein Wheat germ Vitamin E Cyclodextrin Barley extract Fermented grain extract Oat (Avena sativa) Samino peptide complex Secale Cereale (Latin name of rye, or "rye" term containing ingredients) Stearyldimoniumhydroxypropyl Phytosphingosine extract Triticum vulgare {Latin name of wheat, or "wheat" term containing ingredients} Dextrin Dextrin palmitate Maltodextrin Sodium C8-16 Isoalkylsuccinyl Wheat Protein Sulfonate Yeast extract Anything with wheat in the name Thoughts: Some cute person gave the warning to ensure your lipstick is gluten free even if you don't have any skin issues. You could swallow some lipstick and get gluten in your system! Another person adds at the bottom of their e-mail to be sure to check guidelines regularly because company policies can change yearly and the list is only to be considered as "guidelines" and make-up ingredients can change each time a company changes or the scientists within that company decide to add to or delete certain products. {Makes you feel very safe as a celiac/dermatitis herpetaformis person doesn't it?} Another e-mailer suggested that mascara labeled as a "thickening agent" should be fearfully evaluated by the celiac/dermatitis herpetaformis person because the thickening agent is often "flour" and can sometimes cause eyelashes to fall out! Who knew? Noted on one e-mail, ‘So-called luxury brands can be laden with synthetic ingredients that do not cost more than their not so luxurious counterparts. True natural products that do perform, and there are a few such brands on the market, are authentic natural products that actually deliver what they promise and they truly do cost more to make because raw ingredients are much higher in cost. In fact, the cost is significantly higher when pure high grade ingredients are used. Letter received: " We have compiled a list of gluten free beauty products available on sephora.com. These products do not contain any wheat, rye or barley derivatives, and they were made in gluten-free laboratories so there is no chance of cross-contamination. But since you cannot be too careful, discontinue use of any product that triggers an attack." Letter received from Clairol:- "Gluten is a protein found in wheat, rye and barley. Although it is not added directly to our product, it may be present in fragrances. Due to the difficulty of tracing the source ingredients for the variety of fragrances used in manufacturing our products, we cannot provide specific levels of gluten content for any of our fragrance blends. Be aware that even products labeled "unscented" will still contain masking scent, therefore they may potentially contain gluten." Advertisement: World's Top Ten Cosmetic Companies : "Beauty begins on the inside, check out our post on ‘The Top Five Foods for Amazing Skin'" - Posted by The Greenster Team "I finally got up the nerve to go through my own (their) personal care products and look them up on "SKIN DEEP" and was very disappointed. The Company that makes my mascara (L'Oreal) tests on animals as does the company that makes my eyeliner (Covergirl) and my under eye concealer (Made by Physician's Formula) contains parabens" THE GREENSTER TEAM creates great articles, list the top ten cosmetic companies, what portion of the world's market they share and their hazard range. Letter received from Mabelline:- "Please find below most ingredients containing gluten (wheat and other grains). We invite you to take this list and compare it to our ingredient listings every time you buy a new product. When in doubt, do not hesitate to do your own research or contact your doctor." {Caveat Emptor} REMEMBER:- The truth is that there is no such thing as gluten free. The FDA has proposed a less than 20 ppm gluten -free standard in 2006. That was its first attempt to define the term gluten free, but the agency has yet to finalize it. The USDA is awaiting the FDA's decision before moving ahead. STILL WAITING. With the number of products making unregulated gluten free claims on the rise, the marketplace can be scary for consumers with gluten sensitivity and wheat allergies. Why hasn't the FDA finalized its 2006 definition of gluten free? As part of sweeping legislation known s FALCPA the Food Allergen Labelling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, Congress ordered the FDA to define and permit the voluntary use of the term gluten free on the labeling of foods by August 2008. As directed, the FDA issued proposed gluten-free regulations on schedule but seems to have failed to follow through with a final ruling. There has been no explanation for the delay. Since the Cosmetic Industry is a self-regulating body it seems {appears, is assumed} that we the consumers are on our own as far as researching what goes on our skin and in our hair, because some of the letters I have received leave it to the celiac or dermatitis herpetiformis sufferer to research their own products. Even a letter from Avon states:- "Although Avon sells quality products, there is always possibility of contamination during manufacturing or changes/substitutions of ingredients. As with everything related to celiac disease, dermatitis herpetiformis and gluten Intolerance, products, ingredients and preparation may change over time. Your reactions to a specific product, ingredient may be different from the reactions of others. Like eating at a restaurant, you have to make a choice whether to consume/use a product. The list is meant to be a "guide" and does not guarantee that a product is 100% free of gluten. Dacia Lehman, Avon and GIG assume no responsibility for its use and any resulting liability or consequential damages is denied." LETTER: - Proctor and Gamble "The WHMIS rating is designed to rate raw materials and not formulated products such as ours. Nor are our consumer products required to be labeled under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard. Thus labelling of our products with WHMIS ratings or any other hazard rating should not be required by any state health and safety regulatory agencies." That letter is signed by Asela for the Pantene Team. LETTER:- May 2, 2012 - xyz@ca.loreal.com - "We have received your message and we will get back to you as soon as possible. Web Sites: Gluten-free Lifestyle: glutenfree-lifestyle.com (Gives gluten free products by type and by company) i.e.: deodorants, face & body wash, make-up, suntan lotion, toothpaste, moisturizer, lotion, shampoo & conditioner, shave cream, gels, after shave, laundry products, cleaners, soap, etc. Beauty Industry: Who Owns What? Glutino - Hidden Gluten in Health Products - Glutino & Gluten Free Pantry Blogs: www.gluten-free-cosmetic-counter.org Beauty Blogging Junkie Ebates Shopping Blog In The Makeup Lipstick Powder n'Paint Shop With a Vengeance Smarter Beauty Blog The Beauty Brains Sephora Sephora's iGoogle Beauty Portal References: Codex Standard for Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten. Codex STAN 118 - 1979 ROME Government of Canada 2008 - Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (1220- Enhanced Labeling for Food Allergen and Gluten Sources and Added Sulphites) Health Canada 2007 - celiac disease and the Safety of Oats Labeling of Natural Health Products Containing Gluten - Health Canada Notice 2010
-
Celiac.com 04/18/2023 - The collective wisdom is that people with celiac disease should avoid eating French fries cooked in fryers shared with wheat products. But what's the real story? Is there any science to back up the idea? It turns out, there is. A research team recently assessed gluten levels in French fries that were free of gluten-containing ingredients, but were cooked in shared fryers with wheat-containing foods. Here's the rundown. To do so, researchers bought 20 orders of fries from 10 different restaurants and tested them for gluten levels using two different ELISA tests. All the restaurants confirmed that their fryers were used to cook both gluten-free and wheat-containing foods. Study Results Showed Gluten Contamination is Common when Gluten-Free Foods are Cooked in Shared Wheat Food Fryers According to the sandwich ELISA test, gluten was found in 9 out of 20 fry orders, ranging from 7 to over 80 ppm gluten. The competitive ELISA test found gluten in 3 out of 20 fry orders, ranging from 14 to over 270 ppm gluten. However, the study also noted that ELISAs may underperform when analyzing for gluten that has been heated. The findings suggest that one out of four French fry orders would not be considered gluten-free, which suggests that individuals with celiac disease may risk gluten exposure when eating fried foods cooked in fryers shared with wheat-containing foods. The study emphasizes the importance of informing individuals with celiac disease and other gluten-related disorders about the potential risks of consuming fried foods cooked in shared fryers, and the need for food service establishments to adopt policies to prevent gluten contamination. This study is important for people with celiac disease, who must avoid gluten completely to manage their condition, and for whom even trace amounts of gluten can cause harm. The results suggest that many restaurants may not fully understand the risks of cross-contamination when cooking gluten-free foods in shared fryers. Unreliable ELISA Results for Heated Foods This study also highlights the limitations of using ELISA tests to detect gluten in heated foods, as the tests may underperform in these situations. This may suggest that the actual gluten levels in the fries could be higher than what was detected in the study. Because of this, people with celiac disease need to be aware of this risk and probably want to avoid French fries, or any other products, cooked in shared fryers. More research is probably needed to determine the exact extent and conditions of gluten contamination in shared fryers, and to develop better testing methods to accurately measure gluten levels in heated foods. But even in the absence of further data, cross-contamination of gluten-free foods cooked in shared fryers is definitely an issue for people with celiac disease, and those affected should avoid eating any food that is cooked in a fryer that is also used to cook products that contain wheat. Here's an article on where people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity can get decent fast food French fries.
- 31 comments
-
- celiac disease
- contamination
-
(and 8 more)
Tagged with:
-
Celiac.com 04/11/2023 - Batter Than Good Baking Co., an Oklahoma baking company that claimed to be gluten-free, has closed down, and apparently left town, after its products very publicly tested highly positive for gluten. Batter Than Good Baking's Gluten-Free Claims Challenged Rachelle Monica, a client of Batter Than Good Baking whose son has celiac disease initially conducted an at-home test when her son became sick after consuming their products. She then asked Gluten Free Watchdog, a group that tests and researches gluten-free products, to run a lab tests which confirmed her suspicions. The laboratory tests of Batter Than Good's Baking Flour found that it contained levels of gluten far too high to be considered mere cross-contamination. Batter Than Good Baking Denies Claims After a March 9th Facebook posting by Gluten Free Watchdog which stated that Batter Than Good’s Baking Flour tested positive for wheat flour, the company seems to have vanished. Bex Casillas, the chef and owner of the Batter Than Good Bakery, also took her personal Facebook down shortly after she posted that there had been cross-contamination found due to their “incubator kitchen” at Pioneer Technology Center. Pioneer Technology Center Responds to Cross-Contamination Allegations Pioneer then released a statement denying those claims saying “nothing has been baked in the incubator space since February 8th." Meanwhile, a former baker at Batter Than Good Baking told FOX23 that no one ordered the flour at the facility except Casillas. She said it was a “proprietary blend.” Customers with Celiac Disease Outraged Some customers who had purchased Batter Than Good's products expressed their outrage on social media. Many of them, like Monica's son, had celiac disease, which causes damage to the small intestine which is triggered by foods that contain gluten. She had trusted the gluten-free products, but says they made her son sick when he ate them. “If he had continued to eat it, it would’ve put him back in the hospital,” Monica said, showing a doctor's note from Ascension St. John Emergency Center, backing up her claims. Warnings Posted Gluten-Free Watchdog's page posted a warning after their test of Batter than Good Baking Co.'s products. The post has more than 700 comments from parents and clients, upset about the results. “My initial reaction as a parent was how can someone poison a child like that?” said Monica, who thinks it's wrong that someone can label food or a facility as gluten-free, when it's not actually be gluten-free. “Something needs to be done and it's really hard when it hurts our kids and it seems like nobody’s listening,” she explained. Machelle Beard was also a client of Batter Than Good Baking. She also has celiac disease, and says she views the company “100 percent...as poisoning me." Beard says she became sick after eating the baked goods, but didn't think it could be the bakery because of their gluten-free claims. “I do believe it was intentional. They were supposed to be a dedicated gluten-free facility, which means there is no chance of cross-contamination,” said Beard. “The testing proves it wasn’t cross-contamination. The testing proves it was just made with wheat,” added Beard. Efforts to reach business owner, Bex Casillas, via Facebook messenger, email were unsuccessful, and the phone numbers listed there are no longer working. The company appears to have pulled up stakes and vanished in the face of mounting anger and scrutiny over the seemingly non-gluten-free aspect of its "gluten-free" business model. Read more at Fox23
-
How to Stay Gluten-Free in a Cross-Contaminated World
Kelly Carter posted an article in Winter 2020 Issue
Celiac.com 12/13/2019 - I wanted to add some new revelations I've had about cross contamination, including how not to go crazy worrying about it, and what I believe to be the number one way to prevent getting sick from it. There are a lot of posts on Facebook in the Celiac Groups about cross-contamination—let's talk about what it is and why it's bad for those with celiac disease. Cross-contamination is Our Worst Enemy For someone with celiac disease, cross-contamination is our worst enemy. We all know that we can't have gluten—no bread, pasta, etc. We all know that even the slightest amount of gluten can hurt us. Studies have shown that 1/64th of a piece of bread has enough gluten to cause autoimmune problems in celiacs. The FDA has set 20 parts per million (ppm) as the maximum threshold for gluten in something labelled gluten-free. It isn't much. Let's use an example to describe what is happening. I'm going to use a very simple example because it's, well simple. The kids like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, chips, and an apple for their lunch. You pull out the bread, swipe the peanut butter and jelly on, and put it in their lunch box. Put the chips into a smaller container, open the fridge, pull out an apple, and call it a day. Here's the issue—if you put the bread for the sandwich on a plate, awesome, except the plate must now be cleaned before you can use it for any gluten-free items. The knife you used to swipe the peanut butter and jelly across the bread likely has crumbs embedded in the remaining peanut butter and/or jelly. Then if you stuck the knife back into the peanut butter and/or jelly they are also likely contaminated and should be used by those with celiac disease. You likely have introduced crumbs into the containers that you cannot get out. Next are the chips—you thought you were safe there—wrong!! If you didn't wash your hands and I'm pretty sure you didn't, you may have also introduced crumbs into the chip bag. If the bag is contaminated with crumbs it is now unsafe for celiacs. Also, did you wash your hands before touching the fridge door? You get my drift. All of this can be controlled if we are careful. But most people don't think about any of this unless they have a food allergy or a family member who has one. You might think this is a little extreme. It might be. But would you say the same thing for someone with an anaphylactic reaction to peanuts? Or tree nuts? Or anything for that matter? But food is a problem for people with celiac disease and such things can be a serious issue for them. Many times celiac reactions aren't immediately obvious but they do come. Sometimes the reactions are even violent—explosive diarrhea or vomiting. They might be more subtle like brain fog, extreme fatigue, or joint aches or any of the other 300+ symptoms associated with celiac disease. Not to mention the longer term damage to the villi in the small intestine which can take 6 to 12 months to repair themselves. With ongoing long term damage they may never recover. Then, really long term there is anemia, malnutrition, and potentially cancer. So continued gluten ingestion, even in small amounts, may have the potential over time to cause cancer in those with celiac disease. Other hotbeds of cross-contamination are: toasters, butter dishes, scratched non-stick pans, wooden cutting boards and utensils, shared fryers, waffle irons, stirring the gluten pasta then putting the spoon in the sauce, gluten pasta water, non-squeeze bottle condiments, kitchens, etc. Bottom line—If it has gluten and you touch it, you must wash your hands or the item before it is safe for a celiac. Cross-contamination is Everywhere Cross-contamination is everywhere unless you are really careful. Most people don't understand it but I'm hoping this gave you a good introduction into where cross-contamination starts and why it is bad. Each time you leave the house, someone that has recently touched gluten will have touched something you are currently touching or are about to touch—door knobs, buttons on the card machines, grocery store carts, seats, computer keyboards, everything. All of it. Washing hands with soap and water before cooking or preparing food is the number one way to prevent this from causing an issue. A recent study suggested that using a common toaster, cooking gluten-free pasta in pasta water previously used to cook pasta, or using a knife that was previously used to cut a cake may not pose a significant risk of gluten contamination. Each scenario tested to below 20ppm for gluten. I'm not 100% sure I'm on board with this study, but it does make me a little less worried about cross-contamination. I would say, however, if you can avoid the such scenarios, do so just to be on the safe side. There are a couple of other scenarios I see talked about often—non-stick pans, separate plates for gluten and gluten-free food, kissing someone that has recently consumed gluten, or simply having prepackaged gluten foods next to pre-packaged gluten-free foods. The non-stick pans and separate plates issue—if you can replace the non-stick pans, great. If not, hand wash and then run the pans and dishes through the dishwasher and they should be safe. Kissing someone who recently consumed gluten, I think you are okay on this one, too, especially if they have a glass of water or other gluten-free beverage before engaging in a lip lock! As a side note, I would not let this disease get in the way of a passionate kiss, EVER! But that's just my bias. If a package of gluten-free food is in a sealed container and the seal is not broken, the food in the package is still gluten-free. I saw a recent post about a college student wanting to take Lysol wipes into class to wipe down desks before she sat down for fear that someone before her might have been eating a gluten snack at the same desk. My answer was first, are you going to be eating off the desk? Second, are you going to be able to wash your hands before the next meal? If the answer to the first question is yes, then yes, take wipes and wipe everything down. But why the heck are you eating directly off a desk in a strange place and maybe you need to rethink your eating habits. If the answer to the second question is yes, then no you don't need wipes. A good hand washing should be sufficient to protect you from any incidental cross-contamination picked up in the outside world. We Have to Live in a World That is Covered in Gluten Cross-contamination is a serious issue in the celiac community that has to be monitored and minimized. At the same time, we cannot let the disease or fear of cross-contamination rule our lives. We cannot be afraid to go out or to do anything for fear of getting sick. There must be a balance. My balance may look different from your balance, but we have to find a way to get to a place where we feel comfortable living our lives without being in constant fear. What I might see as acceptable risk, someone else may not, and that is fine. My whole point is that you have to find a way to be comfortable and not make your life feel like you are living in a gluten-free jail. Balance and the ability to live a full gluten-free life with few restrictions is the entire point of my blog—in addition to providing information about celiac drugs, new studies and talking about celiac disease.- 15 comments
-
- celiac disease
- contamination
- (and 4 more)
-
Celiac.com 01/06/2023 - Non-responsive celiac disease (NRCD) affects up to 15% of children with celiac disease. A Gluten Contamination Elimination Diet (GCED) is a more stringent diet consisting of fresh, whole, and unprocessed naturally gluten-free foods. A team of researchers recently set out to assess their approach to identifying and treating NRCD with budesonide and the Gluten Contamination Elimination Diet (GCED). Their results were encouraging. Here's what they found. The research team included Awab Ali Ibrahim, Victoria Kenyon, Alessio Fasano, and Maureen M Leonard. They are variously affiliated withthe Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; the Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA; the Center for Celiac Research and Treatment, MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; the Mucosal Immunology and Biology Research Center, MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston, MA; the Celiac Research Program, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. NRCD Defined Non-responsive celiac disease is defined as patients having persistent symptoms and enteropathy, with at least Marsh 3 histology, after following a gluten-free diet for at least 12 months. Researchers think that NRCD affects up to 15% of children with celiac disease, but there is limited data, and no research to date, describing treatment of children with this NRCD. Retrospective, Single Center Analysis The team performed a retrospective, single center analysis over a 5-year period of patients with celiac disease 18 years of age and under, who received treatment for persistent symptoms and enteropathy despite following a gluten-free diet. NRCD Patients Respond to GCED and Budesonide The team found a total of 22 patients with NRCD. Of the thirteen patients treated with the GCED for 3 months, nearly half experienced both histological and symptomatic resolution of celiac disease. Of the nine patients were treated with budesonide (6-9 mg), nearly ninety percent experienced both symptomatic and histologic resolution after treatment averaging three months. Further, more than two-thirds of patients who responded to the GCED, and 100% of patients who responded to budesonide, experienced remission of at least 6 months following treatment transition back to a gluten-free diet. Treatment of NRCD with the GCED and budesonide can provide benefit most NRCD patients. Most patients with NRCD can return to a standard gluten-free diet after about three months of treatment. This is some of the most promising treatment information we've seen with regard to NRCD. The article shows that many celiac patients not responding to a gluten-free diet can respond to a more stringent approach. The high response rate to this treatment offers exciting news for patients with NRCD and their physicians. Stay tuned for more on this and related stories. Read more at J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2022 Nov 1;75(5):616-622.
-
- budesonide
- contamination
- (and 8 more)
-
As a celiac, I recommend that you do not go to this restaurant. The kabobs were excellent and the service was wonderful. But despite our waitress saying our food was gluten free, I still got constipation and rectal prolapse. The food was definitely contaminated, unfortunately.
- 1 reply
-
- contaminated
- contamination
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Celiac.com 04/20/2022 - The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is directing healthcare facilities and providers to transition to fully disposable duodenoscopes, and those with disposable components. The FDA made the announcement after an analysis of post-market surveillance studies supported the agency's concerns about the difficulty of fully cleaning fixed endcap duodenoscopes. Among other things, the agency noted that older reusable duodenoscope models had contamination rates as high as 6%, compared with just .5% for disposable models. The agency notes that disposable duodenoscopes and components reduce patient contamination risk "by half or more as compared to reusable, or fixed endcaps." The contamination concerns, coupled with the increasing availability of disposable duodenoscopes led the agency to update its April 2020 recommendations on the subject. Duodenoscopes are used in more than half a million medical procedures annually in the United States, and play an important part in evaluating and treating diseases and problems of the pancreas and bile ducts. While duodenoscope manufacturers no longer sell fixed endcap models in the United States, numerous healthcare facilities still use them. To decrease infections, the FDA now recommends that all fixed endcap models be replaced. The agency notes that some companies have programs in place to upgrade their old models with a disposable component at no cost. The FDA has approved two fully disposable duodenoscope models, along with five that use disposable components. Only four of the disposable components are currently available in the U.S. FDA-approved fully disposable duodenoscopes include: Ambu Innovation GmbH, Duodenoscope model aScope Duodeno Boston Scientific Corporation, EXALT Model D Single-Use Duodenoscope FDA-approved disposable duodenoscope components include: Fujifilm Corporation, Duodenoscope model ED-580XT Olympus Medical Systems, Evis Exera III Duodenovideoscope Olympus TJF-Q190V Pentax Medical, Duodenoscope model ED34-i10T2 Pentax Medical, Duodenoscope model ED32-i10 Read more at Medscape.com
-
- contamination
- disposable
- (and 4 more)
-
Celiac.com 11/12/2021 - Is it possible for a large, multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation like McDonald’s to make an honest mistake—even if that mistake benefits them directly by increasing their sales and bottom line? For many people the answer is no—never—there must be some conspiracy or greedy modus operandi at work which better explains the situation. If you are a die-hard conspiracy theorist there may be little in this article that will change your position with regard to McDonald’s and their recent “gluten problem.” My hope, however, is that people on both sides of this issue will gain some knowledge here—especially with respect to how difficult it really is for all food companies to determine and guarantee the gluten-free status of their foods. Additionally, I believe that we can all learn something from McDonald’s mistake (or uncovered secret plot!), and how they have dealt with it. For many years McDonald’s has told its customers via their Web site and customer service telephone line that their French fries and hash browns were gluten-free. Due to their wide availability and low price these menu items have become a staple for many people on a gluten-free diet. The drama surrounding these foods began on February 13, 2006, when the Houston Chronicle broke this story: “McDonald’s: Fries Have Potential Allergens.” This article revealed that the natural flavoring used in those menu items actually contains wheat as an ingredient. According to a March 8th email from Catherine E. Adams Ph.D, R.D., McDonald’s Corporate Vice President Worldwide Quality Systems and Nutrition, McDonald’s first noticed this potential problem when one of their ingredient suppliers had to comply with the new Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, which required that supplier to list, if present, any of the eight major allergens (or their derivatives) on the packaged food’s product label. The supplier complied and informed McDonald’s of their “use of wheat as an ingredient in the natural flavoring.” A Case for Innocence There are several reasons why I believe that this whole incident was a large, avoidable, mistake on the part of McDonald’s (rather than a secret plot): The timing of the event: This story broke one month after the new labeling laws took effect. McDonald’s likely had no idea that wheat was in the natural flavoring until it was revealed to them by their supplier (of course they should have done due diligence and known this back when they created their gluten-free product listing.); Something that was contained in Ms. Adams’ March 8th email response: “While the new law applies to packaged food products—not the restaurant industry—in our ongoing efforts to communicate to our customers we thought it was important to share this information.” She is legally correct here—the new law does not require McDonald’s to reveal the fact that there is a wheat-derivative in their natural flavoring—the law does not apply to the restaurant industry and only applies to the packaged food consumer market (certainly this is a loophole that needs to be changed in the future). If McDonald’s wanted to keep this a secret from the public they could easily have done so because there is no legal requirement for them to disclose any allergens in their foods. They have done this on a strictly voluntarily basis for many years now; Public image: McDonald’s has gone to a great deal of effort over the years to voluntarily disclose their list of “safe” foods for people with various allergies—mainly because it is good for their public image—and to a certain extent the allergy market has been a source of revenue and has likely increased their sales. Misleading people with regard to the allergens in their foods, whether it is done on purpose or by mistake, would surely lead to major lawsuits that would likely negate any financial gain achieved from this relatively small market—and would create a public relations nightmare. To a company like McDonald’s public image is everything. It seems doubtful that they would intentionally take such a great risk to gain a share in such a small market. Let the Lawsuits Begin Very soon after the newspaper story broke the French fries and hash browns were taken off of McDonald’s gluten-free list on their Web site. On February 19,, 2006, the Wall Street Journal ran the article: “McDonald’s Faces Three Lawsuits,” and thus began the “lawsuit bandwagon” that continues to the present. It has the potential to ultimately cost them tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars through a class action suit. At about this same time I actually had to ban a major Colorado law firm from the Gluten-Free Forum (www.glutenfreeforum.com) because they were trying to use the site to solicit forum users to join a class action suit that they planned to bring against McDonald’s. This violated the site’s rules against advertising. McDonald’s Response On February 20,, 2006, only one day after the Wall Street Journal article appeared, Jack Daly, Senior Vice President of McDonald’s Corporation, issued a media statement on their Web site titled: “McDonald’s Fries are ‘Gluten and Allergen Free,’ According to Expert.” It stated that: “Scientific evaluation by one of the world’s leading experts on gluten sensitivity and allergenicity, Dr. Steven Taylor of the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program of the University of Nebraska, has confirmed again that our fries are gluten free and allergen free. Based on this analysis, we believe the lawsuits filed are without legal merit.” Support Groups to the Rescue Shortly after the release of Jack Daly’s media statement the Gluten Intolerance Group (GIG) issued a press release titled “McDonald’s: A Safe Place for Celiacs to Eat According to the Gluten Intolerance Group”, which backs up McDonald’s claim that their fries and hash browns are gluten-free. The Celiac Sprue Association (CSA) also released a statement on their Web site that supported McDonald’s, and in much more detail than the GIG’s, including the following statement: “The CSA has examined the commercial manufacturing process of the natural flavoring with wheat as a starting ingredient which is used in connection with the McDonald’s Corporation French fries and hash browns. CSA provides the following statement after knowledgeable, careful evaluation and review of the process and pertinent test results. French fries and hash browns prepared in oils with this flavoring might be considered, commercially, to ‘contain no gluten.’” What Does “Gluten-Free” Mean Anyway? Reliable sources have since revealed that the wheat used in McDonald’s natural flavoring is processed in such a way that nearly all proteins are removed, much like the distillation process removes gluten from wheat, and that the actual gluten content in the French fries and hash browns—according to RidaScreen Gliadin Elisa testing—is less than 3 parts per million (PPM). It is still possible for partially broken down wheat proteins to be present, so a Rast test was also done and no wheat-allergic residue was detected. Together these results are convincing and indicate that McDonald’s French fries and hash browns are indeed gluten-free by any current standards that are in use anywhere. But “less than 3 PPM” is not zero gluten—right? Keep in mind that it is currently impossible for anyone to say that any food or product is 100% gluten-free—there is no analytical technique that can say that there is zero gluten in a sample, and the best detection limits I have seen report low ranges from 2 to 20 PPM—not zero. The Codex Alimentarius, which covers the U.S.A., and Canadian standards for gluten-free is 20 PPM for naturally gluten-free foods, and there is currently no gluten-free standard for the U.S.A. Do the Lawsuits have Merit? Based on the aforementioned test results it is highly doubtful that McDonald’s has hurt anyone with these products—which is what must be shown in such cases—the claimants must demonstrate actual damages, loss or injuries related to the defendant’s actions (or inactions), and if they cannot do this their suits will be without merit and will be thrown out (which is what I believe will happen here). Even if the testing had found higher levels of gluten in the products the claimants would still be facing an uphill battle. This is because they would still have to demonstrate that a specific injury was caused to them by McDonald’s, and that their injury didn’t occur by another means. In other words they would have to show that there were no other sources of gluten contamination in their diets, which is something that is difficult if not impossible to do in a legal context. On top of these problems the claimants must overcome the fact that in the U.S.A. there are no current legal regulations regarding the use of the term “gluten-free” on packaged or restaurant foods. The only thing that comes close is the Codex Alimentarius, which are voluntary industry guidelines and not legal regulations. The Damage Done Whether or not McDonald’s wins or loses these lawsuits may, however, be irrelevant. To a certain extent the damage has already been done—and it does not stop simply with the damage that was done to their public image and reputation. The fact that many people with allergies and intolerances will never again trust McDonald’s (or companies like them) is just the most obvious fallout from this whole mess. There is a much larger picture taking shape that began with McDonald’s no longer listing the gluten-free product information for many of the items that they used to list. Their French fries, hash browns, shakes, dressings, etc., and other companies have also discontinued their “gluten-free” product listings. Some companies have even stopped using the term “gluten-free” on their labels, even though their products remain gluten-free. One company even contacted me and wanted to be removed from the offerings at The Gluten-Free Mall due to liability concerns that began when they heard about the McDonald’s fiasco. For companies like McDonald’s the potential benefits of providing such voluntary information must outweighs the risks. The extensive publicity surrounding these events has made it clear that the risk of being wrong when making the claim that a product is free from an allergen, even if the mistake is an honest one that began with perfectly good intentions, is very great. So why risk making such claims at all? (This will be the question asked by the companies’ lawyers anyway.) The fallout from this may not end for some time. Certainly anyone making, selling or claiming that their products are gluten-free (or free from some other allergen) must be concerned about the possibility of litigation. In the end it will likely be easier for many companies not to bother with the allergen market at all, especially once real gluten-free regulations are created here in the U.S.A., which will happen in the next couple of years. Hindsight How could McDonald’s have avoided all these problems in the first place? The most obvious answer is that they could have avoided making any claims about the allergens in their products. That would have left those of us who have food challenges in the dark. Does that sound like McDonald’s to you? I hope such a negative scenario doesn’t become the norm for such companies. Perhaps the best solution would have been for them to consult with some of the many celiac disease/gluten-free experts, for example the Gluten Intolerance Group’s new Food Certification Program, or with Donald D. Kasarda, Former Research Chemist for the United States Department of Agriculture, and made 100% sure that their lists were accurate (in this case it appears that their lists were accurate, but disclosing ALL of the actual ingredients in their products would have avoided much of this controversy). I think that all food companies can learn a valuable lesson from these events: it is better to test your products before you have any issues, and to continue to test them periodically. It is better to conduct ingredient research up front and consult with experts before publishing any gluten-free product listings—this is an ongoing process and must be done regularly because ingredient suppliers may change. Once the information is compiled and determined to be accurate it is better to disclose ALL ingredients used in every product. Web sites are a great place for such information. Even if you operate a restaurant and are not legally required to do so, public disclosure is best when it comes to things that your customers put in their mouths—and your customers have a right to know exactly what they are eating. Fast food companies should print ALL ingredients on the packaging no matter how scary they sound. Individuals who are concerned about such matters will, or should, be familiar with what is and is not safe for them.
- 1 comment
-
- contamination
- french fries
-
(and 5 more)
Tagged with:
-
Celiac.com 09/21/2021 - Restaurants are one of the biggest challenges for people who need to eat gluten-free due to celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Pasta is one of the most commonly ordered restaurant dishes, and if gluten-free pasta is on the menu, it will definitely be popular for those with celiac disease. But what if the gluten-free pasta you order is boiled in the same water as they cook their traditional wheat pasta in? Did you ever wonder how much cross contamination there might be if this should happen? This scenario, unfortunately, happens more often than you might think. For example if the cook is new, or not properly trained, they might put your gluten-free linguini in the same pot of water that they just cooked regular wheat pasta in. This would obviously be a big problem for you, but just how big? Restaurants are still the biggest challenge for people who need to eat gluten-free due to celiac disease or gluten sensitivity, and many celiacs won't eat out because of such problems. A number of researchers have attempted to quantify cross-contamination risks for various food preparation activities, like a shared toaster that is used to prepare gluten-free toast. In a perfect world such things would never happen, but in reality it happens more often than most people realize. So how much cross contamination is there when this happens? Believe it or not, a team of researchers at the University of Nebraska ran some experiments to figure this out. The research team included Melanie Downs, Jennifer Clarke, Steve Taylor and then-UCARE (now doctoral) student Nate Korth. Interestingly, and perhaps counterintuitively, it turns out that shared water isn't as bad as you might expect. The team found that, even though gluten levels in the gluten-free penne rose slowly when boiling 52-gram servings over the course of five batches, those levels never exceeded 20 ppm. When boiling restaurant-sized servings, though, the gluten-free penne registered nearly 40 ppm after the fifth batch. So, for the first four batches, the pasta water remained below 20ppm gluten, then quickly rose to 40ppm after the fifth batch, perhaps due to gluten build-up in the water. Remember, the researchers are not trying to see how far restaurants can take it, but to attempt to quantify the risk levels for people with celiac disease, and no restaurant should ever do this. It's important to note that we're not recommending that anyone with celiac disease ever do this, or that any restaurant should ever do this, but it is important to quantify such risks for those with celiac disease. Regardless of what the researchers found, our recommendation is to always cook gluten-free pasta in dedicated, clean water that is kept totally separate from where traditional pasta is prepared, and to train all restaurant staff accordingly.
- 1 comment
-
- contamination
- gluten
-
(and 5 more)
Tagged with:
-
Aussies Look at Dangers of Ryegrass in Gluten-Free Grains
Jefferson Adams posted an article in Summer 2021 Issue
Celiac.com 08/16/2021 - Australian researchers are warning that proteins in the common weed ryegrass could pose significant gluten-contamination problems for people with gluten sensitivity and for Australian farmers growing gluten-free crops, such as millet, buckwheat and sorghum. Ryegrass is commonly used as livestock feed and also as a turf of choice for sports pitches. A strain of ryegrass also graces the famed tennis courts at Wimbledon. But ryegrass is also a regarded as a menace, and regarded as an undesirable weed, especially among gluten-free crop growers. Researchers have expressed concern that the gluten-like proteins found in ryegrass might readily mix with crops used as gluten-free products, and trigger reaction among people with celiac disease or gluten intolerance. Research led by Edith Cowan University (ECU) and Australia's national science agency, CSIRO, identified the proteins in 10 strains of ryegrass (Lolium species), a costly and invasive family of weeds commonly found in Australian cereal crops. The research team found nearly twenty proteins found in ryegrass, which showed similar properties to gluten proteins, says Dr. Sophia Escobar-Correas, a researcher based at ECU and CSIRO. While ryegrass proteins are technically not defined as gluten, they may trigger reactions for some people with celiac disease or gluten intolerance. Dr. Escobar-Correas says that her team has "developed a method to detect these ryegrass proteins that allows us to distinguish them from other grains." To better understand whether these ryegrass proteins may be a problem, Dr. Escobar-Correas plans to undertake clinical studies to determine if these proteins trigger a celiac response. If people with celiac disease or gluten intolerance react to these proteins, she says, "then it's important that we develop tests to detect their presence in food products which are otherwise gluten-free." Professor Michelle Colgrave of ECU and CSIRO, and a co-author on the research, says the research lays down a marker for gluten-free products "by giving consumers and producers confidence that products labelled as gluten-free are free from other proteins which may trigger reactions resulting from agricultural co-mingling." The idea that rye grass contamination in gluten-free grain products could cause reactions for people with celiac disease and gluten-intolerance is an interesting one, and certainly merits further study. Maybe that Wimbledon grass Novak Djokovic snacked on was not so gluten-free after all?- 2 comments
-
- celiac disease
- contamination
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Hi everyone, I have been eating gluten free for about a month since being diagnosed with celiac. Despite being vigilant in reading labels, researching brands, and not taking any risks (no eating out or eating anything prepared by anyone but me), I've felt the symptoms of being glutened a few times now. I have a lot of questions around how much contamination and gluten it takes to negate a gluten free diet. If I get contaminated once a month will my small intestine still heal? Or is that enough to undo any healing? How much impact will accidental glutening have on my long term health? Can I afford to trust gluten free food at a restaurant when there's a teenager in the kitchen focused more on flirting with the hostess than they are about gluten contamination? Please don't confuse this with me saying I want to have cheat days or be lax in my gluten-free eating. Right now I have no sense of what constitutes a risk and whether or not it's worth taking. When I feel a symptom I can't help but feel like I'm taking years off my life. I appreciate any insight you have. Thanks!
- 3 replies
-
- contamination
- glutened
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Celiac.com 04/09/2020 - Anyone with celiac disease knows how hard it can be to follow a gluten-free diet. Some studies have shown that even celiacs who strive to stay gluten-free are commonly exposed to gluten. How common is gluten-exposure in celiacs who are following a gluten-free diet? A new study takes a deeper look at real world gluten exposure in celiac patients following a gluten-free diet. To do so, the research team set out to measure levels of gluten immunogenic peptides (GIP) in fecal and urine samples from celiac patients on a gluten-free diet. The research team included Juan Pablo Stefanolo, Martín Tálamo, Samanta Dodds, María de la Paz Temprano, Ana Florencia Costa, María Laura Moreno, María Inés Pinto-Sánchez, Edgardo Smecuol, Horacio Vázquez, Andrea Gonzalez, Sonia Isabel Niveloni, Eduardo Mauriño, Elena F. Verdu, Julio César Bai. They are variously affiliated with the Dr. C. Bonorino Udaondo Gastroenterology Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina; the Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University Medical Centre, Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada; and the Research Institutes of Health, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires, Argentina. The team conducted a prospective study of 53 celiac adults in Argentina who had followed a gluten-free diet for more than two years, and an average of eight years. The team used a celiac symptom index questionnaire to assess celiac-related symptoms for each patient at the beginning of the study. Patients in the study collected stool each Friday and Saturday and urine samples each Sunday for one month. The team used a commercial ELISA to measure gluten immunogenic peptides in stool and point-of-care tests to measure gluten immunogenic peptides in urine samples. Among other revelations, the results showed that nearly 40% of stool and urine samples were positive for gluten immunogenic peptides. Nearly 90% patients had at least one fecal or urine sample that was positive for gluten immunogenic peptides (median, 3 excretions). Nearly 70% of urine samples were positive for gluten immunogenic peptides at least once. Positive gluten immunogenic peptides samples correlated with blood levels of deamidated gliadin peptide IgA, but not with levels of tissue transglutaminase. Interestingly, symptomatic patients had more weeks with detectable gluten immunogenic peptides in stool than patients without symptoms. Patients with celiac disease on a long-term gluten-free diet are still frequently exposed to gluten. Tests to measure gluten immunogenic peptides in stool and urine could help dietitians ensure gluten-free diet compliance. In their celiac patients. In this real world study, nearly nine out of ten celiacs who are following a gluten-free diet tested positive for gluten exposure at least once in this study, and nearly two out of five urine tests was positive for gluten exposure. Moreover, these exposures may not have symptoms. This is pretty alarming news, to be honest. People with celiac disease need to avoid gluten, and they need a reliable way to check and see if they need to adjust their diet. Do you have celiac disease? Are you on a gluten-free diet? Do you think you get exposed to gluten regularly? Do you think that regular testing might help you to avoid gluten? Comment below. Read more in the Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
- 18 comments
-
- accidental
- celiac
- (and 7 more)
-
Celiac.com 09/17/2020 - A recent "Advisory" issued on August 29, 2020 by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), followed by a product recall, has brought up an interesting question: Which food safety system works better, the USA's or Canada's? The alert was issued two weeks ago for President's Choice Brand "Gluten-Free" Chicken Strips, the text of which reads: "In response to several reported reactions from consumers, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is recommending individuals with celiac disease, or others with gluten-related disorders, to not consume the product described below as it may contain undeclared gluten. " The advisory goes on to list the UPC number (0 60383 20488 4) and product code (2021 AL 20) of the chicken strips to avoid. What caught our eye about this particular alert was that it was an "Advisory," rather than a recall, and recalls are what we typically see issued by both the CFIA and the FDA. This raised the following question: What is the difference between a CFIA "Advisory" and a "Recall", and is it better to have both? On August 31, 2020 we sent an email to the the CFIA's media department where we asked several questions, and on September 2, 2020 we received the following responses from Christine: Q: What is the threshold minimum number of complaints required to trigger this type of public warning? Christine's Answer: "There is no set number of complaints required to issue a public warning. The CFIA issues public warnings on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the Agency had credible information from several sources that a particular product was the cause of several illnesses." Q: Did you test any of this company's products before issuing this warning? How did you determine that gluten was present in this product before issuing this warning? Christine's Answer: "In this case, the Agency acted on credible information from several sources that a particular product was the cause of several illnesses. It was affecting individuals with Celiac disease who normally show adverse reactions to the presence of gluten. Given the potential severity of reactions, the Agency chose to inform individuals with Celiac disease and other gluten related disorders based on a pattern of reactions." Q: Did you speak with any representatives at this company before issuing this warning? Christine's Answer: "Loblaw Companies Limited was contacted before issuing the consumer advisory and the recall warning." Q: Did any of the people who complained about the product run any tests for gluten? Christine's Answer: None of the complainants supplied test results for gluten to the Agency. After 25 years operating the Celiac.com Web site, including over 15 years of running our site's forum, one thing we've learned is that it can be very inaccurate to try to determine whether or not something has gluten in it just by someone's gut reaction to it. While some celiacs swear they can do this accurately, many celiacs, especially during the 1-2 year period following their diagnosis, can react in a similar way to all sorts of things like casein/milk, corn, eggs, soy, etc., possibly due to the "leaky gut" condition caused by the disease. Some celiacs swear they react to distilled alcohols made using gluten containing grains, even though scientists and the FDA have determined them to be gluten-free. Given the extremely high expenses that such an advisory could create for a food company, we were hoping to get a more specific answer to our first question, and were very surprised to discover that there is no threshold to trigger such an advisory. Could a single report from a celiac trigger an advisory to be issues? Below are examples of stories that ran in the press just one day following the advisory, which triggered Loblaw to voluntarily recall the product: Notice that none of these stories leave any doubt that there was gluten in the product, even though the CFIA made it clear in answering our first round of questions that the product never tested positive for gluten. At this point we were scratching our heads and wondering whether this system was working as planned, and whether it was doing a good job of keeping celiacs in Canada safe, or were advisories being issued without any real evidence that the product contained gluten? Since the CFIA indicated that there is no specific threshold for the issuance of such an advisory, we really had no idea if "several" complaints meant two or three, or two or three hundred. Directly following Christine's September 2, 2020 responses we sent a follow up question to her, but this time Patrick, rather than Christine, responded to it: Q: How can you be sure that the reactions that have been reported were not caused by a bacterial, chemical, or other issue with the product, rather than by gluten in the product? Patrick's Answer: "In this case, multiple individuals consumed the product and only those with celiac disease or allergies to wheat reported reactions. This points to gluten/wheat being the causative agent. In addition, some individuals reported anaphylactic shock. Those reactions are not associated with bacterial or chemical contamination in food. After the Consumer Advisory was issued, the food safety investigation was able to confirm that one of the ingredients contained gluten and a recall was issued by Loblaw Companies Limited." Patrick's response certainly makes this sound like an open and closed case of wheat contamination in a product that was labelled gluten-free. If true the CFIA's advisory system was very effective at detecting gluten in a gluten-free product, which is exactly what their advisory system was designed to do—protect its citizens as soon as possible from dangerous foods. Even though the CFIA's system appears to have worked well in this case, it also seems like it could easily result in costly errors. By not setting a threshold number of complaints, or verifying the presence of gluten in a product before issuing such an advisory, it's possible that a costly mistake could be made, and if so, such an error could severely damage a small company. In this instance the company was a large one, which means that the product was distributed more widely, and it was therefore more important to react quickly, especially for those with anaphylaxis. Many people in the USA have reported complaining to the FDA about the possibility of gluten in products that are labelled "gluten-free," for example certain General Mills cereals, however it appears that the FDA has a much higher threshold for issuing a product recall. At the time of writing this article we could not verify exactly how the warnings sent into the FDA are used to issue a recall, but we assume that they follow up by testing the reported batch and/or lot number of the reported products, and if gluten is found we assume they issue the recall. We wonder if the FDA's current system would have been able to detect gluten in these chicken strips and issue a recall as quickly as the CFIA's advisory system did? On one hand it makes perfect sense to verify complaints with positive testing for gluten before issuing any recall, if only to avoid costly errors that could harm companies, on the other hand it's possible that such delays could cause serious injury, or even deaths. Ultimately it's possible that both countries' systems could learn something from one another, and each could be improved. Tell us in the comments below which food safety system you like better, the FDA's possibly more conservative approach, or the CFIA's seemingly more aggressive approach? Read the original consumer alert at: healthycanadians.gc.ca
- 3 comments
-
Celiac.com 05/25/2020 - A food survey in India found that ten percent of grain-based foods labelled "gluten-free," and more than one-third of products that are "naturally gluten-free," have been found to be contaminated with gluten, with some products testing at 90 times permitted gluten levels. Gluten contamination is a serious and potentially dangerous problem for people with celiac disease, since gluten consumption by celiacs triggers an immune reaction that damages the small intestine, and can lead to serious health complications over time. For people with gluten or wheat allergies, gluten consumption can trigger serious allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock, and potentially death. A research team at the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) in Hyderabad, India bought 160 grain-based food products, including RTE foods, flours, grains, from regional retail shops and online grocers. They then analyzed these products for gluten content. A total of 51 products were labelled "Gluten-Free," while 109 were naturally gluten-free, and supposedly contained no added gluten, including dahl, millet, quinoa, buckwheat, oats, etc. Tests showed that many of these products labelled "Gluten-Free" contained gluten at levels above the legal limit of 20 ppm the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Other products contained gluten at levels above 200 ppm for products labelled "Low-Gluten." The team's analysis showed that nearly 40% of naturally gluten-free products and 10% of food products labelled "Gluten-Free" contained gluten levels above legally permitted limits. One of the biggest culprits was oats, with almost 85% of oat products showing gluten levels above 20ppm, and the most contaminated sample clocking in at 1,830ppm of gluten, over 90 times the permitted levels. Flours labelled "Gluten-Free" are "still risky no matter the source though - nearly 70% of the local brands, 30% of the flour mill samples and 13% of the branded samples were contaminated, likely due to cross-contamination from the usage of common collection bags, utility areas or handling procedures with wheat flour." Of the naturally gluten-free products, rice (44%), ragi (32%) and sorghum (20%) all showed significant levels of gluten contamination, as did all four samples of gram flour. By contrast, for products labelled "Gluten-Free," the biggest problem was seen in from multigrain products, with high gluten levels seen in 25% of those products. The team found no gluten contamination in branded rice, ragi or sorghum, but did find contamination in branded millets and gram flour, said principal investigator Dr Devindra. The safest products in this study turned out to be buckwheat, quinoa, pulses, millets and soy, none of which showed elevated gluten levels. Products labelled "Gluten-Free" were generally safer than those which are "naturally gluten-free." Prior studies have shown that celiac disease rates in India may be higher than 1% previously reported. In India, as in many countries, many people rely on naturally gluten-free foods to treat celiac disease and lower the financial costs of a gluten-free diet. That makes the revelations about the dangers of "naturally gluten-free" foods even more disturbing. The problem of gluten contamination in gluten-free foods is not limited to India, as Australia, Brazil, UK, and the United States have all had similar reports about gluten contamination in our otherwise gluten-free food supply chain. Contaminated products could be one reason that so many people with celiac disease, who are trying to follow a gluten-free diet, are exposed to gluten on a regular basis. Read more in Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A; Volume 37, 2020 - Issue 4
- 6 comments
-
- celiac
- celiac disease
-
(and 8 more)
Tagged with:
-
Celiacs are Eating More Gluten than They Realize
Jefferson Adams posted an article in Additional Concerns
Celiac.com 02/25/2019 - Even when following a gluten-free diet, many people with celiac disease occasionally ingest small amounts of gluten in food. However, researchers don’t have much good data on how that plays out in real life. Testing patient stool and urine is an excellent way to measure the frequency of gluten exposure in celiac patients who are on a gluten-free diet. To get a better picture, a team of researchers recently set out to explore the pattern of fecal and urinary excretion of gluten immunogenic peptide (GIP) during a 4-week period in celiac patients on a long-term gluten-free diet. The research team included Juan P Stefanolo; Martín Tálamo; Samanta Dodds; Emilia Sugai; Paz Temprano; Ana Costa, Ana; María Laura Moreno; María Inés Pinto Sanchez; Edgardo Smecuol; Horacio Vázquez; Andrea F Gonzalez; Sonia I Niveloni; Elena F Verdu; Eduardo Mauriño; and Julio C Bai. They are variously affiliated with the Dr. C. Bonorino Udaondo Gastroenterology Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Argentina.; the Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada; and with the Research Institutes at the Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires, Argentina. For their descriptive and prospective study, the team enrolled consecutive adult celiac patients who had been following a gluten-free diet for more than two years. All participants filled out a celiac symptom index (CSI) questionnaire to document related symptoms. Patients collected stool and urine samples for 4 weeks. The team designed the collection protocol to measure gluten excretion during week-days and week-ends. For GIP detection, the team used ELISA test for stool (iVYLISA GIP-S ®, Biomedal S.L. Spain) and point-of-care tests (GlutenDetect ®; Biomedal S.L., Spain) for urine. The team found that, regardless of symptoms, celiac patients on a long-term gluten-free diet frequently ingested gluten, especially on weekends. The steady increase in GIP over the month-long study indicate that people may be less vigilant about eating gluten-free, especially on weekends. This study indicates that many people with celiac disease are lowering their vigilance, and accidentally or deliberately eating gluten, whether or not they have symptoms. These results drive home the importance of constant vigilance for people with celiac disease. Source: Digestive Disease Week 2019- 13 comments
-
- celiac
- celiac disease
- (and 6 more)
-
Gluten in Foods Labeled 'Gluten-Free' an Ongoing Problem
Jefferson Adams posted an article in Additional Concerns
Celiac.com 12/06/2018 - The growing popularity of gluten-free foods has led to numerous new products for consumers, but it has also led to some problems. One recent study showed that up to one-third of foods sold as gluten-free contain gluten above 20ppm allowed by federal law. Other studies have shown that restaurant food labeled as “gluten-free” is often contaminated with gluten. The problem of gluten in commercial food labeled gluten-free is not isolated to the United States. Recent studies abroad show that the problem exists in nearly every gluten-free market in every country. In Australia, for example, researchers from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne found detectable gluten in almost 3% of 256 commonly purchased “gluten-free” manufactured foods, a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia on Monday says. Furthermore, the study shows that nearly 10% of restaurant dishes sold as "gluten-free" contain unacceptable levels of gluten. Now, the Australians have a stricter standard than nearly anyone else, so look for them to be on top of potential problems with gluten contamination in gluten-free products. The study did not name the food manufacturers responsible for the contaminated products, but did note that better, more frequent gluten testing by manufacturers would make gluten-free foods safer for people with celiac disease. In a related study, the same researchers found in May that nearly one in ten samples of “gluten-free” dishes from restaurants within the City of Melbourne contained gluten levels in excess of the official Food Standards Australia New Zealand definition of gluten-free. “It’s troubling to think that these foods could be hindering the careful efforts of patients trying their best to avoid gluten,” an author of the study, Dr Jason Tye-Din, said. A spokeswoman from Coeliac Australia said the organization was taking the findings seriously. “The research team that conducted this study has liaised with the food companies and is following up the positive samples with further retesting to ensure the issue is resolved,” she said. In addition to urging consumers to be diligent in reading labels, and to report any suspect products, “Coeliac Australia advises all people with coeliac disease to have regular medical check-ups as they do have a serious autoimmune condition and medical assessment is important to determine that their gluten-free diet is going well and no complications are developing.” Read more at: TheGuardian.com- 16 comments
-
- celiac
- celiac disease
-
(and 8 more)
Tagged with:
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):