P.F. Chang's Temporarily Dodges a Gluten-free Bullet

Once any training and assigned areas is done and in place, there is nothing else. Prices should be the same or "minimally" higher.

Its about time people are taking action. Anyway, I am glad that they have a gluten free menu at all.

I do not agree with Ms. Phillips. There are higher costs to establishments to offer gluten free foods. And, celiac diners DO have an option of whether or not to dine out or in most of the time. Those who travel a lot get caught, but, if they are traveling for work their expenses are usually covered. I am happy to pay more to ensure that my food is not cross contaminated and that I can enjoy a meal without having to worry about a possible cross contamination! I am totally willing to pay extra to make sure my servers, chefs, etc. are well trained against cross-contamination!

I have celiac disease. I am grateful that restaurants provide gluten-free options. Since the food often costs more, restaurants should be allowed to charge more.

gluten-free ingredients generally cost more, so restaurants should charge more. Maybe what should be happening is celiac disease groups should go after fed and state gov't wheat subsidies - does a poison for so many need fed gov't subsidies with your tax dollars?

I am so glad this case was at least tentatively dismissed. I understand the frustrations of having to may higher costs for gluten-free products in general, but I am so thankful for restaurants like P.F. Chang's that allows those with celiac to enjoy safely eating out with friends and family. Kudos to Celiac Disease Foundation for highlighting that it's simply more expensive for restaurants to offer a celiac safe gluten-free option. I continue to support P.F. Changs and hope the chain understands that most of those with celiac are grateful to have restaurants that understand their needs and offer them safe dining out options.

I feel they have a profit to make and should not have to provide expensive items for a "same price" as market products. There are examples, however, of only switching to gluten-free soy to make the item gluten free, that certainly do not call for a price increase for the gluten-free item.

None of us like having to pay more for gluten free food but it sure beats being sick for days. If a restaurant takes the time to properly train their employees to prevent this, it is worth the cost. More restaurants could benefit by doing this and increase their customer base.

I for one am happy about this. PF takes great care to offer this and I believe there is extra expense. It's one of the few restaurants where I feel reasonably safe. I wish there was more choices in eating and I was bummed to see litigation involved.

Her case is ridiculous. Every store and restaurant charges more for gluten free. Their cost is more also.

Maybe if the judge were celiac or had to eat gluten free and was forced to pay higher prices for eating in a gluten-free meal and still run the risk of being cross-contaminated the judge's decision might be different. Both foods from restaurants and pre-packaged gluten-free foods from grocery stores seem to have the same motto: Half the product for twice the price!

I think on a practical basis it needs to be dismissed. I disagree with the judges statement that it is minimal but fear there will be fewer gluten free options if this woman persists. I would be inclined to no longer offer gluten free options if it were my restaurant and I was the victim of this woman. California is drowning it's small businesses in paperwork and BS in general. Everyone should have their own business for a few years. They would be more practical. If you have a business in California you are probably breaking a law, even if you are unaware of it.