Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • 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
    eNewsletter
    Donate

Study: 8% of Gluten-Free Products Test Over 20ppm, and 15% of "Gluten-Free" Products Certified by GFCO Contain Gluten at Over 10ppm


Scott Adams

Recommended Posts

Scott Adams Grand Master
5 hours ago, RMJ said:

Here is an update from Gluten Free Watchdog, indicating that the high results on at least one item may be false positive.  I am a scientist and used to develop ELISAs, the type of test used.  Non-specific binding such as is described can be a real problem with these tests, so this is a scientifically reasonable explanation.

possibly false positive

I've sent an email to Dr. John Fagan, Chief Scientist at Health Research Institute, asking for his comments on that article, and I'll share any response. In his initial reply he doesn't say one way or the other whether or not he used blocking agents like non-fat dry milk (NFDM), bovine serum albumin (BSA), or casein, but since he's at an accredited lab I must assume that he would know the protocol for such testing, and would follow it. If he didn't follow the protocol for the tests then it seems like he would likely have had a lot more false positive results in his report, but hopefully I'll hear back from him soon.


Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Scott Adams

    36

  • RMJ

    12

  • trents

    10

  • Lotte18

    3

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Scott Adams

    Scott Adams 36 posts

  • RMJ

    RMJ 12 posts

  • trents

    trents 10 posts

  • Lotte18

    Lotte18 3 posts

Scott Adams Grand Master
4 hours ago, trents said:

Thanks for this input and the link, RMJ. As I said some time ago in this discussion, I fear the celiac community may have gone off half-cocked in their reaction to these claims. Having said that, I still think random, unannounced drop in testing added to the mix of protocols would be a good idea.

I think the GFCO step down process is far too aggressive--it ends up where a company only needs to test a single gluten-free product per quarter? What if the company makes millions of boxes per week, for example a major cereal company? To me, the amount of testing done to retain certification must be consistent over time, done on every batch, and must be done in proportion to production run sizes--you need to test 1 of every 5,000 products for example--rather than a one size fits all approach where the total number of tests a company must do is the same no matter what their production size is.

Lotte18 Contributor

Trents, Thanks for your comment.  Like so many, I was completely unaware of the GFCO step down testing process.  I assumed they were testing on a consistent, perpetual basis.  My understanding is that companies pay a minimum of $10,000 a year for this certification.  You and I pay a premium for that certified product.  Testing should be consistent.  The FDA doesn't step down testing beef, poultry, etc. do they?  Which begs the question, why isn't the FDA certifying our food?  Again, thanks for your input!

Scott Adams Grand Master

The FDA sets the guidelines for certain things that can appear on food labels, and they also do some random testing and enforcement. You can, for example, report a company if you get sick from a product due to gluten. Ultimately it comes down to funding--and like many federal agencies the FDA is underfunded in comparison with the task at hand--keeping the USA food supply safe.

Lotte18 Contributor

Thanks for clarifying Scott.  The FDA does have an enormous job.  

Looking forward to seeing what else you uncover from this evolving story.  Many thanks for keeping us informed.

Scott Adams Grand Master
On 7/23/2024 at 10:20 AM, RMJ said:

Here is an update from Gluten Free Watchdog, indicating that the high results on at least one item may be false positive.  I am a scientist and used to develop ELISAs, the type of test used.  Non-specific binding such as is described can be a real problem with these tests, so this is a scientifically reasonable explanation.

possibly false positive

So far I've not heard anything more from the Moms Across America folks about their test protocols, and it's possible that due to the class action lawsuit against Trader Joe's spawned by their article,  I may not get a reply. 

I think Gluten-Free Watchdog's position on this is a bit strange, given the normal angle they take of protecting their paying members from possible gluten contamination. In this case they are jumping to a conclusion, without any evidence, that the lab MAY not have followed standard protocol for gluten-free product testing, but they have no evidence of this--zero evidence of such a lapse was presented in their article. The article is pure speculation at this point--WHAT IF they didn't follow protocol--but how does this approach serve their gluten-free members and the broader gluten-free community? Are they telling them it's ok to eat those bagels because the lab MAY have made a mistake? Did Trader Joe's approach them and encourage them to do this critical article?

Gluten-Free Watchdog, as far as I know, to this day doesn't believe that Cheerios are gluten-free and safe for people with celiac disease, and their reasoning for this position was their claim that there could be hot spots where some boxes of Cheerios might have higher levels than others, even though General Mills invented and patented technology they developed which removes wheat grains from oats, thus removing the contamination before they are processed. To date I'm not aware of any individual box of Cheerios testing over 20ppm, yet Gluten-Free Watchdog, as far as I know, hasn't changed their position on this.

In the case of the Trader Joe's bagels, we have an accredited lab that ran two standard tests on a batch of Trader Joe's Everything Gluten-Free Bagels which registered at nearly 300ppm--yet Gluten-Free Watchdog is taking a position here that the lab might not know what they are doing--and the bagels might actually be gluten-free? It's exactly the opposite position to their position on Cheerios, where they seem to want to err on the side of caution, even though they have no evidence that any boxes of Cheerios exist that are over 20ppm--in this case they seem to want to ignore scientific lab results and attack the lab and doctor who runs it, rather than warn their users to avoid the bagels and err on the side of caution.

Just my two cents here, but I must say that at this point I believe Gluten-Free Watchdog's position is irresponsible (but it is fair for them to ask the lab questions about their protocols), and they would do better in serving the gluten-free community by erring on the side of caution. Making the assumption that the bagels actually could be safe given the shared test results could get people sick.

RMJ Mentor

Actually, in both cases they are criticizing the testing laboratory.

A big issue they had with the Cheerios testing was that the company said they took 12 samples (good) but then mixed them together prior to testing such that if there were a slight hot spot it would be diluted and possibly not detected. Mixing samples like that is NOT considered good in an analytical laboratory and it surprised me that the Cheerios manufacturer did that.

In the current case, as you say, they’re guessing at a laboratory problem which could explain the results, but they don’t know how the testing was actually done, so it remains to be seen if the criticism is valid.

 


Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



Scott Adams Grand Master

Anyone can make a statement like that about any gluten-free company--that there could be hot spots out there about any of their products, but you need a lot more evidence to make such a claim--in this case we have a lab that ran the accepted gluten tests which found high gluten content in a product, yet, instead of Gluten-Free Watchdog warning people not to eat the product they do an article speculating on possible failed protocol by the lab. They test the same bagels as evidence for this, yet not from the same batch. 

In the case of General Mills, they would be a huge target for a big class action lawsuit. If you could buy 100 boxes of Cheerios and find 1-2 that were above 20ppm, then any attorney could bring a major case against them. The fact that this hasn't happened in over 10 years--and with millions of boxes per week manufactured--tells me that their technology is working as designed, and is effectively removing wheat kernels, yet Gluten-Free Watchdog has never changed their stance on Cheerios.

Their positions on issues seems to shift with the wind--there is no consistency. There is no warning in Gluten-Free Watchdog's article to play it safe and avoid the product until we know more. One analogy I think of here is that it is like reading an article in the paper about Joe Blow getting in a car accident caused by him driving too fast, and the article doesn't mention anything at all about drunk driving or alcohol being involved--but then someone writes another article about the accident wherein it doesn’t mention driving too fast at all, but instead mentions the risks of drunk driving, and cites lots of statistics about drunk driving, and how to best detect high blood alcohol in drunk drivers—and speculates that maybe Joe blow was drunk.

Of course Joe Blow could have been drunk and gotten away with it, just like this lab might have done their gluten tests incorrectly--but is it fair to make such assumptions without any evidence, and then not play it safe with the facts that we actually have? My personal reaction was to warn consumers first about the study to prevent possible injury, and see how things pan out later. I'll be happy to report anything that is learned going forward, including if the tests were done incorrectly, but the more I think about Gluten-Free Watchdog's article the more I must scratch my head. Who is their article trying to protect?

Eleanor McGinn Newbie

How credible is Mom’s Across America? I never heard of them until they made news regarding unacceptable gluten content in so many foods that claim to be gluten free. As a celiac, that’s worth investigating. I did and heard reports from a company and a  credible gluten certification organization that contradicted MAA. Could this be any more confusing? Should we be looking for hidden agendas? Are all certification labs equally credible? Do they use different techniques resulting in different outcomes? Is there any truly reliable source of information on this issue? Must one’s gut be the ultimate testing ground? If so, that’s a recipe for disaster. Just asking……

EBM

Scott Adams Grand Master

I am sure that there are many other organizations that you have not heard of, and the fact that you haven't heard of them does not detract from how credible they might be.

But Celiac.com is indeed investigating their report, and have been one of the only organizations who has reached out to them and received direct replies from them regarding their study, which we've shared here in this thread and in the comments under our original article, as well as direct replies from Dr. John Fagan, Chief Scientist at Health Research Institute, regarding their tests.

We won't, however, run speculative articles without any evidence to support them that question the lab that was used to run the tests, as I think this approach could potentially be harmful to the people we're trying to help here--I believe it's best to play it safe, rather than ignore the message and try to kill the messenger. Until I hear more from Dr. John Fagan, Chief Scientist at Health Research Institute, I will assume that his lab understands the test protocols, as he earned his Ph.D. in molecular biology, biochemistry, and cell biology from Cornell University:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/drjohnfagan/

Also, one can ask the same question about Gluten-Free Watchdog--how credible is that organization? They have a paywall separating their test results from the public--which is a model that I disagree with--especially if their goal is to help people celiac disease, and not just those who can afford to pay. 

RMJ Mentor

The best way to investigate the unexpected results would be at the laboratory that got those results. An accredited laboratory likely has a procedure for laboratory investigations which would involve reviewing how the tests were run, and possibly redoing tests on retain samples if procedures were not correct. Such an investigation takes time and dollars. However, to HRI the higher gluten results aren’t necessarily unexpected, so such an investigation would have to be by request of the person or organization who contracted to have the samples run (MMA), and HRI would likely not be able to make the results of the investigation public without permission from MMA.

We may never know if the high results were hot spots or analytical issues. Either is theoretically possible. As Scott said, the safest thing is to assume the results are correct.

 

Scott Adams Grand Master

I am also not terribly surprised by the results of the MMA study, given the number of recalls I see on gluten-free products, even ones that are certified gluten-free:

This is even less surprising to me now that I understand the step down testing granted to companies that have GFCO certification, which I don't agree with regardless of what comes about about the lab tests in this case:

 

Scott Adams Grand Master
On 7/31/2024 at 1:16 PM, RMJ said:

The best way to investigate the unexpected results would be at the laboratory that got those results. An accredited laboratory likely has a procedure for laboratory investigations which would involve reviewing how the tests were run, and possibly redoing tests on retain samples if procedures were not correct. Such an investigation takes time and dollars. However, to HRI the higher gluten results aren’t necessarily unexpected, so such an investigation would have to be by request of the person or organization who contracted to have the samples run (MMA), and HRI would likely not be able to make the results of the investigation public without permission from MMA.

We may never know if the high results were hot spots or analytical issues. Either is theoretically possible. As Scott said, the safest thing is to assume the results are correct.

 

I received this reply from John Fagan, Ph.D. or Health Research Institute regarding the Romer G12 ELISA tests that were run by his lab for the MMA study, and it includes his response to the Gluten-Free Watchdog article. His reply makes me even more suspicious about the article Gluten-Free Watchdog, as he even offered to send them a sample from the same batch that they tested, which they refused (they tested a different batch to somehow try to prove that the tests done by Health Research Institute may have been done incorrectly).

Quote

Hi Scott,

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been traveling.

I read your article. Wisely put! I agree with your proposal for GFCO to increase the frequency of testing. The cost of testing is not so great to put a serious financial burden on manufacturers and that will protect people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease and it will protect the GFCO standard. A gluten-free claim carries with it a big responsibility for brand owners and for GFCO, and your article positions your organization to remind everyone of that responsibility.

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. 

To reiterate, we used the Romer 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. Health Research Institute is an ISO17025 accredited laboratory and is approved by the FDA as a high-complexity clinical laboratory.

I am happy to answer any additional questions by phone or email.

Sincerely,
John Fagan, Ph.D.
Chief Science Officer
Health Research Institute
505 Dimick Drive, Suite 111
Fairfield, IA 52556

 

Scott Adams Grand Master

I am sharing here the GFCO's official response to Celiac.com's request for comment (which evidently ended up in their spam folder):

Quote

Hi Scott,

Thank you for getting back to us. We just wanted to be sure you were aware that we have investigated the MAA claims and found that they were not reproducible - our complete response can be found at https://gluten.org/consumer-notice-gluten-free-product-testing-results/ 

Best regards, 
Laura
 
Laura K. Allred, Ph.D.  |  Regulatory Manager
My Office Hours: M – Th 8:00am to 5:00pm, F 8:00am to 12:00pm Eastern
Corporate Office: 31214 124th Ave SE, Auburn WA 98092

 

Scott Adams Grand Master

We published a new article related to this discussion here, as we believe that it's important to try to clear up confusion that is now being created within the celiac disease community:

 

Rachwertz Newbie

I quit eating these bagels years ago when my Celiac Service Dog began alert to  these bagels. Checked by several other gluten detection dogs they all alerted on different samples and batches over several years. This just confirms I was right to not trust their products. Check the cinnamon muffins also alerted to them for gluten contamination. 

trents Grand Master

There is such a thing as a Celiac Service Dog? How do you get these and what does it take to qualify for one? Can you share your story with us. I imagine you must have severe reactions to gluten. This might be a better option than a Nima gluten sensor!

Scott Adams Grand Master

We've done some articles on this:

@Rachwertz than you for sharing this!

Has your dog ever detected gluten in McDonald's French Fries?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      126,058
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Jtestani
    Newest Member
    Jtestani
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      120.9k
    • Total Posts
      69.1k

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • Kathleen JJ
      And yes, of course it's better to know and we will adjust.  It's just, he's 7 and in our house we can control what he gets. But he plays soccer 3 times a week and in the changing room the boys share candies. I can and will tell him not to accept them any more, but "mistakes" will be made.   I'm really burdened by the potential social impact for him. He so loves to go to a restaurant as a family - I'll guess that's finished. Going to birthday parties at another kids house? I am reading about Coeliacs and apparently the fact that something as much as TOUCHED something with wheat is enough, even if he doesn't feel the symptoms - how can we control that bar from keeping him locked up?    And the worst worry of all: how do you tell a little boy to do all of this to not have symptoms that he does not have. If he'd been having horrible diarrhea or feeling really tired, we could tell him 'see, you feel so much better now, that kind of food was just not good for your body', but now, what will our argument be? For clarity: of course we will put him on the diet, I am not saying I don't believe in the necessity of that, it is just that it will be quite a stretch to 'sell' it to him 😞
    • StaciField
      I’m 41. You have helped me achieve the goals of finding a way of getting nutrients into my body so I will see how it works for me. Thank you so much.
    • Kathleen JJ
      Thank you for your reaction. The reference values are both "<10", although I found a medical paper from Netherlands (I'm Belgian) who use the same values and there the see a positive daignosis as twice more then 200 and a positive biopsie. I didn't see how to change this in my original message, sorry...
    • cristiana
      Hi Kathleen Welcome to the forum. I am based in the UK so I am just picking this post up before our US based moderators appear.  I think they will want to know the lab values of both of the figures you have provided us with (min/max reading) as they tend to vary - could you post those for us, please? We see a lot of coeliacs who also have helicobacter pylori on this forum.  I am not sure how that would reflect in the blood results so I will leave this to be answered by my more experienced colleagues @trents or @Scott Adams. Obviously, you won't really know for sure where things stand until you have your meeting with the consultant.  I am sorry that you have to wait, but it will be worth knowing one way or another.  Apart from his recent gastric issues, it is fantastic to know that your son is otherwise a picture of health.  But it is worth bearing in mind that undiagnosed coeliac disease can cause health issues in the longer term, so far better to know now if he does turn out to have coeliac disease and adapt your son's diet accordingly, before other health issues have a chance to appear. Cristiana  
    • Kathleen JJ
      Hi all, I'm very new at this and 'this' has been quite a rollercoaster ride.   Last august my 7 year old son suddenly had these colic like pain attacks that would come a few times per day/night during 10 days. Because they were that bad and because our older daughter had her appendix taken out at 7, we ended up at ER twice to have him checked out. On both accounts blood was taken, on one account an ultrasound was made, showing swollen lymph nodes around the stomach, and the working theory was it was a violent reaction to a viral infection (even though he was not nauseous nor had diarrhea or anything like that). After 10 days it stopped as suddenly as it came on.   On October 1d my daughter started vomiting in the middle of the night, had a fever, and my son also threw up once (no fever). We kept them home from school, daughter kept on vomiting, fever stayed, son was perfectly healthy during the day, although he only ate yoghurt to be safe. The plan was to let him go to school the day after. In the night prior to his school return however, he woke up at 1, screaming with pain, begging to go to ER, which we did - the pain from august had returned.   Again bloodwork, but nothing found. It ended up only being that one pain attack, but because they were that bad, we went to the pediatrician the week after to have him checked up more thoroughly. He is a very energetic, sporty boy and he showed off his six pack with great pride to the doctor. She said he looked as an example of health, but did a more extended search because as the last blood test his liver values had been ever so slightly raised and she wanted to see how they'd do after a month.    So on November 8 we had his blood drawn again. His liver values had returned to normal, which did confirm the working theory that his pains were viral-infection triggered.   However, to everyone's (including the doctor) surprise, he also had these values: Transglutaminase IgA + >128 U/mL Gliadine IgG + 123.0 U/mL    I take it these are quite high. So last Tuesday he got his gastroscopy done, we'll have the result around the 25d we hope.  Whilst going for taking samples of the bowel, the gastro enterologist did notice some nodes in his stomach that present like a reaction to a Helicobacter pylori type infection, which would very much explain the type of pains he had.   We are still very much in shock by the Ceoliakie diagnosis (I know, it still needs to be confirmed by the biopsy, but with those numbers we kind of expect it) as he has no symptoms at all. The doctor said 'once he goes on a gluten free diet you'll see him blossom into an energetic, more happy boy' and we're like: but he is bouncing around singing and joking all day, I really can't imagine him being MORE energetic and happy - meaning, he's welcome to be that of course, but this is not a tired, withdrawn kid.   And even if the biopsy gets back negative (unlikely), what could these numbers have meant then? Could the Helicobacter pylori have an influence on this?   I have so many questions but are only eligible for a consult on December 6d so my data driven mind is going crazy having so little information or knowing so little about what everything means...   Kind regards, Kathleen  
×
×
  • Create New...