Gluten free foods may be contaminated study shows

[JLH]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66F3KE20100716

[tex]

While the intentions were good, the conclusions of that study are totally irrelevant, from a scientific viewpoint, (but, of course, still useful, for other purposes). Look at what the study involved:

Thompson and her colleagues analyzed 22 naturally gluten-free grains, seeds, and flours off supermarket shelves, only looking at products that weren't specifically advertised as being gluten-free.

The red emphasis is mine, of course. Why would Thompson, et al, think that it was simply a coincidence that the manufacturers did not label those products as gluten-free? The manufacturers left off that certification because they sometimes sell products that they cannot guarantee to be gluten-free. It is ridiculous to assume that a product is gluten-free, if it is not labeled to be gluten-free. Manufacturers are not stupid - they are well aware that a GF certification will enhance the appeal of their product, and probably increase it's sales potential. Therefore, they are going to use that certification, if they possibly can. If they don't, you can safely assume that the product may, or may not, be gluten-free, depending on the luck of the draw, on that particular day.

IMO, though, this is exactly the reason why so many of us react to commercially processed foods, (mixes, finished products, etc.), even though they are labeled as gluten-free - the manufacturers incorrectly assume that the non-gluten grains, and other ingredients that go into their products, are gluten-free, when in fact they are not. When you are manufacturing a product, you are not likely to buy the most expensive ingredients, if less expensive, (but apparently equivalent), substitutes are available. If you don't minimize your input costs, you cannot compete in today's world. If you buy a soy-based ingredient, for example, you feel safe in assuming that it would not contain any gluten, because soy is not even a grain. Because of the omnipotent powers of Murphy's law, though, you might be wrong, unfortunately.

The longer the list of ingredients in a product, obviously, the higher the risk that this contamination can/will occur. If you use enough ingredients, contamination is almost inevitable. That's exactly why, if you are going to buy commercially-processed foods, the ingredient list should always be as short as possible.

Thanks for posting that - it was probably time for us to review that issue again.

Tex

[Rosie]

When you are manufacturing a product, you are not likely to buy the most expensive ingredients, if less expensive, (but apparently equivalent), substitutes are available. If you don't minimize your input costs, you cannot compete in today's world.

And with more international sourcing, especially from China, I also worry about adulteration. There was a recent article in the newspaper about olive oil, especially the "extra virgin" type, not being what was claimed. Evidently lower grades of olive oil were mixed in, and sometimes other oils were blended in too. So I wonder about getting a bit of soy oil in what is supposed to be pure olive oil. Avoiding really cheap brands and buying known reputable brands is about the only protection.......

As Mad-Eye Moody in the Harry Potter books would say: "Constant vigilance!"

Rosie

[tex]

Avoiding really cheap brands and buying known reputable brands is about the only protection.......

I agree with you on that observation. I think I saw an article about similar problems with certain brands of olive oil, a couple of years ago. I think the issue that I read about only involved olive oil that was recovered by subsequent extraction processes, (IOW, non-virgin oil), being blended with the good stuff). It's pretty easy to cheat, with a product such as that, so it's probably a recurring problem. Blending in other oils, is taking unscrupulous behavior to new highs.

Tex

[mbeezie]

I disagree just a bit. I think testing the items she did was beneficial because many people who need GF diets can't afford the pricier items labeled gluten free. We are making assumptions that everyone can afford to pay a bit more for food and that's not always the case. I shudder to think what I would do if I were dependent on food stamps or had a very tight budget for food - I would really want to know if some cheaper items were safe. I have worked with an indigent population in the past and trust me, they don't want to spend a penny more for food than they have to. I agree with what everyone is saying about safety, but we have to be realistic about what people can actually manage in their lives and to be realistic about what people are actually doing.

Many of the celiac forums and support groups list items that are GF but not labeled GF for this very reason. For example, when my son went to camp (and I'm sure they were on a tight budget) they served Cocoa Pebbles and he came home begging for them. They are rice based but not labeled gluten free. I have always purchased the more expensive EnviroKids products with fewer additives and less sugar and are labeled gluten free. I am sure many families routinely buy the cheaper cereal and other products and need to know if they are safe or not.

Mary Beth

[tex]

While the intentions were good, the conclusions of that study are totally irrelevant, from a scientific viewpoint, (but, of course, still useful, for other purposes).

Mary Beth,

I did indicate that I thought the study was beneficial. However, a thousand apologies, because I should have ignored the article in the link, and looked up the abstract for the original study, (the full text is, for most practical purposes, unavailable, since, like certified gluten-free foods, it is expensive). As so often happens, the author of the Reuters article completely, (and I do mean completely), missed the point of the research project. Why does that happen so regularly? It seems that so many of them would rather climb up on the roof, and totally distort the facts, than to stand on the ground, and report it accurately.

It turns out, the research project was done for a specific, (and extremely worthwhile, IMO), reason - to try to bring the FDA to it's senses, concerning an absurd clause in their proposal. From the abstract:

Under the Food Allergen and Consumer Protection Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must issue a rule for the voluntary labeling of food as gluten-free. In the proposed rule, many single-ingredient foods, such as millet, are considered inherently free of gluten. Inherently gluten-free grains will be considered misbranded if they carry a gluten-free label and do not also state that all foods of the same type are gluten-free (eg, “all millet is gluten free”).

IOW, the FDA wants to force all manufacturers of certified gluten-free products, to make a false claim on their labels, (that all inherently gluten-free foods, are always gluten-free). That's the stupidest idea that I've heard in quite a while. There is absolutely no way that any manufacturer can legitimately claim that all products sold by their competitors are gluten free. Besides being invalid, it's an absolutely asinine concept, because everyone knows that stuff happens, and it happens regularly. Contamination is a fact of life for anyone with food sensitivities. Is the FDA nuts?

If they want to require manufactures to make claims of this nature, they should require manufacturers of non-certified products that are considered to be inherently gluten-free, to add a statement to their labels that the products might, (or might not), be gluten free, but there is no guarantee, either way.

Agreed, it would be nice if all products that are inherently gluten-free, would actually be gluten-free. In the real world, though, that is a physical impossibility, due to the limitations of commercial grain-handling facilities. Some degree of blending takes place in most steps along the way - some accidental, and some unavoidable, (due the nature of the equipment involved), but blending, (contamination), is not going to go away, simply because it's undesirable. The FDA can mandate whatever they wish, but the risk/reality of contamination is going to remain with us, probably forever, unless we want to spend a small fortune on our food, which would allow the development and installation of totally different grain-handling facilities, in all of the elevators in the world. (Trust me, the world can't afford to do that.)

The scariest thing here, though, is the fact that the FDA is obviously operated by people who are so naive, (or is "stupid" the correct term?), that they actually think that they can mandate gluten-free status by fiat. Now that's scary. Clearly, they don't actually understand the issues surrounding food sensitivities. They don't understand these issues at all, IMO.

The conclusion of the abstract obviously right on target.

The FDA may want to modify their proposed rule for labeling of food as gluten-free, removing the requirement that gluten-free manufacturers of inherently gluten-free grains, seeds, and flours must state on product labels that all foods of that type are gluten-free.

http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002 ... 8/abstract

Many of the celiac forums and support groups list items that are GF but not labeled GF for this very reason.

The problem with that approach is that it is doomed to failure. If the product is not certified, there is usually a good reason. Just because one batch, (that member X personally checks out), is actually gluten-free, does not imply that the batch that member Y buys, (in Timbuktu), is going to be gluten-free, also. It can be trusted only if it has the exact same lot number as the product "tested" by member X, unfortunately.

As far as buying those un-certified products is concerned, yes, we can almost always get away with it, but we shouldn't be surprised, (or upset), if we get zapped, occasionally. The sole purpose of a certification is the manufacturer's guarantee behind it. Without the certification, there is no guarantee by the manufacturer, so we have to be willing to shoulder the risk.

At least that's the way that I see it, speaking as a manufacturer who has to certify my own products, in order to meet state requirements.

Tex

[MaggieRedwings]

YES TEX!

THE FDA CAN REALLY BE THAT STUPID!!!! I am sure you knew that. It is the dumber than dumb society of the world.

Love, Maggie

[mbeezie]

Yes, apparently the FDA is nuts!

Mary Beth

[Gabes-Apg]

isnt the FDA Food and drug administration .......... that would be a puppet that is controlled by big pharma ?????

[tex]

But Gabes - the FDA is from the government, and they're here to help us.

At least that's what they claim.



Tex

[Gabes-Apg]

[Joefnh]

isnt the FDA Food and drug administration .......... that would be a puppet that is controlled by big pharma ?????

Gabes your learning the US political system.... Follow the money

--Joe

[Gabes-Apg]

it is not just the USA Joe......
the reason they are "big pharma" is that they have control on health systems in all developed countries not all of them are USA owned, I think it is a 5050 split on Europe or USA parent company ownership.

[Joefnh]

That makes sense Gabes especially given the global nature of these companies. For them influencing a government agency is just another tool used to achieve their goals.

--Joe