Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
http://glutendude.com/not-gluten-free/b ... uten-free/
More:
"Gluten Free Watchdog, LLC recently tested a box of Bart and Judy’s Gluten-Free Chocolate Chip Cookies for gluten contamination using the R5 ELISA Mendez method. The product tested well above 20 parts per million of gluten. Detailed test results are available only to subscribers of Gluten Free Watchdog. Test results provide a snapshot picture of the gluten content of this product at one point in time. There is no way of knowing without testing many more samples whether the results of the one sample tested are representative of the gluten content of this product as a whole. For more information about Gluten Free Watchdog see https://www.glutenfreewatchdog.org/prod ... ookies/241. This statement was posted with permission of Gluten Free Watchdog, LLC."
You might want to pass on these cookies..............
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
You might want to pass on these cookies..............
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
While a single test result above 20 ppm is cause for concern, it's certainly not justification for condemning a product, and labeling it as "unsafe".
How cheap can someone be, to do a single test and use that as the basis for a product condemnation. Those ELISA tests are not fool proof — I've used many of them in the past. They are fail-safe tests, meaning that if any step in the testing process is not done correctly (and there are multiple steps, all of which have to be completed in proper sequence, with proper timing, and careful measuring of reagents), the result will show the product to fail the test.
For all we know, the individual performing that single test might have been distracted, or for whatever reason failed to properly carry out one or more of the steps in the test procedure, and that resulted in a false positive test result. We have no reason to trust that persons competence. I'm not saying that the result was not accurate, I'm just saying that it should have been replicated on numerous samples (preferably from different lot numbers), and the results should have been verified by other lab workers.
But looking at everything else that has happened, it's pretty clear that the claim is accurate, and those cookies probably aren't even close to being GF, (I just wish that the GF Watchdog would have done a better job of attempting to prove that). And there is no question that cross-contamination of so-called GF products seems to be ubiquitous. I just wish that everyone who considers themselves qualified to serve as a "watchdog" for the public, would actually provide evidence that they are responsible, and qualified to make such claims. Obviously, doing a single test doesn't exactly establish any credibility. Why on earth didn't they do more testing to back up their claim?
And I have another beef with the so-called Gluten Free Watchdog's methods. Obviously he's just in it for the money. Why bother to post details about a test, and then require a subscription in order to read the most important detail, namely the result? Obviously the page is nothing more than an ad to sell newsletter subscriptions. If he's not going to post the result, then why would anyone want to waste their time reading the page?
Tex
How cheap can someone be, to do a single test and use that as the basis for a product condemnation. Those ELISA tests are not fool proof — I've used many of them in the past. They are fail-safe tests, meaning that if any step in the testing process is not done correctly (and there are multiple steps, all of which have to be completed in proper sequence, with proper timing, and careful measuring of reagents), the result will show the product to fail the test.
For all we know, the individual performing that single test might have been distracted, or for whatever reason failed to properly carry out one or more of the steps in the test procedure, and that resulted in a false positive test result. We have no reason to trust that persons competence. I'm not saying that the result was not accurate, I'm just saying that it should have been replicated on numerous samples (preferably from different lot numbers), and the results should have been verified by other lab workers.
But looking at everything else that has happened, it's pretty clear that the claim is accurate, and those cookies probably aren't even close to being GF, (I just wish that the GF Watchdog would have done a better job of attempting to prove that). And there is no question that cross-contamination of so-called GF products seems to be ubiquitous. I just wish that everyone who considers themselves qualified to serve as a "watchdog" for the public, would actually provide evidence that they are responsible, and qualified to make such claims. Obviously, doing a single test doesn't exactly establish any credibility. Why on earth didn't they do more testing to back up their claim?
And I have another beef with the so-called Gluten Free Watchdog's methods. Obviously he's just in it for the money. Why bother to post details about a test, and then require a subscription in order to read the most important detail, namely the result? Obviously the page is nothing more than an ad to sell newsletter subscriptions. If he's not going to post the result, then why would anyone want to waste their time reading the page?
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.