Australian Celiacs Fight to Keep Tough Gluten-free Standards

I hope they hold tough. I feel the 20 ppm standard in the U.S. is not good enough for me. I find I have a slight celiac reaction (rash) going most of the time even though I eat only gluten free foods.

Definitely have US/Canada standards change to Australia's standards. As previously read in another article, and for those that have celiac ... 20ppm still has gluten and therefore bad for celiac ... 10ppm still has gluten and therefore bad for celiac. 3ppm still has gluten and therefore bad for Celiac.

Yet again we see the standards of our health being at risk all for the convenience of an industry - in this case manufacturers. This is just as horrible as marking the packages May Contain just to be lazy/safe!! Keep Australia Safe!! Fix the standards in other countries to match!!

When I met with Dr. Rodney Ford of New Zealand in October 2012, he urged us to not accept the 20ppm gluten-free labeling standard. I am an extra sensitive celiac and ataxia and cannot consume food processed in a facility that processes wheat. I hope the Australians fight to keep 3ppm.

I am an Australian and have not traveled to US/EU since diagnosis 5 years ago. I do, however, live in another country where products are imported from both Australia/NZ and the US.

Whilst I will purchase products from the US labelled as gluten-free, I still read the labels. To date, I have not had an adverse reaction. It is useful to note that Australians who are diagnosed with coeliac disease are told not to eat oats - so purchasing products from US/EU is more challenging as they may be labelled gluten-free but could still contain oats.

In respect to whether it would be better for Australia to increase to 20ppm or for EU/US to change to Australian rules - I would suggest that consistency would be good, but the consistency would also need to consider whether oats are in or out of a gluten-free diet.

20ppm is obviously good enough for those eliminating gluten for general health purposes. For those with extreme gluten sensitivity this may well be 'not good enough'. Extensive testing of what levels are ok for everybody should surely be a prerequisite to legislating a standard (anywhere).

I too believe they should hang tough - those of us who are extremely sensitive are better served by the stricter standard.

I fully agree that all the countries must meet up to the standards of Australia. As I dream of a day that I can travel and eat out without fear of falling sick.

I do hope they hold out (and win) for the 3 ppm gluten levels. I feel that the 20 ppm standard is too high here (I am a very sensitive celiac). Our policy makers have the habit of lowering standards, whether it be for water contaminants, pesticides, et al. Never to our benefit. I rarely eat gluten-free products but opt for fresh, whole foods.

First, Australia should be the standard all the other countries should rise to meet. For those of you who can tolerate the 20ppm which I cannot, please remember that even though you might not be having visible symptoms, the damage could still be happening! Second, since when should standards be determined by the food industry? They already charge more just to say "gluten free" and now you've made it easier for them to not be careful when preparing "gluten free" foods.

3) Would a food containing 20ppm of sugar be able to be labeled "sugar free"?

First, Australia should be the standard all the other countries should rise to meet. For those of you who can tolerate the 20ppm which I cannot, please remember that even though you might not be having visible symptoms, the damage could still be happening! Second, since when should standards be determined by the food industry? They already charge more just to say "gluten free" and now you've made it easier for them to not be careful when preparing "gluten free" foods.

3) Would a food containing 20ppm of sugar be able to be labeled "sugar free"?

You are making the mistake of assuming that the highest possible level of gluten allowed in foods, 20 ppm, is actually in those foods. This is not the case. Most gluten-free foods test well under this level, and yes, if a food contained only 20 ppm of sugar your would not be able to taste any sweetness, and it likely could easily be labelled "sugar free."

I think the U.S. and Europe should change their standards to match up with Australia's current standards. Just because a food is certified doesn't mean somebody with celiac disease won't get a glutened when they eat it. 20 ppm is too much for some people to tolerate, so that label isn't trustworthy. The FDA's standards are clearly set too low and need to be more stringent.