Question About 20 Ppm Or 200 Ppm Or Whatever Ppm

[home-based-mom]

Much ado has been made recently about whether "gluten free" means zero gluten, or 20 ppm gluten, or 200 ppm gluten or whatever. My personal opinion (and I admit that I tend to think in black and white absolutes) is that gluten free means just that and if there is any gluten in something, it is not gluten free by definition.

But I digress as that is not my question, and whether you agree or not is not relevant to my question.

Much ado is made over and over about the necessity of tossing out used wooden spoons, colanders, scratched non-stick cookware, etc. Everyone seems to agree on this point - I have seen no disagreement since I've been coming here.

What I don't understand is how, after one of these kitchen items has been washed and rinsed and washed and rinsed and boiled to loosen subatomic gluten particles and washed and rinsed some more, could there be 20 gluten parts period, never mind 20 ppm, left to contaminate any food that comes in contact with it! Certainly there isn't the "single bread crumb" left - to cross-contaminate over and over and over!

But apparently there is enough left to make people sick. As people do get sick from what is way less than the "single bread crumb," why is 20ppm OK and 200 ppm potentially OK when such minute residue demonstrably is NOT OK?

Inquiring minds want to know, because that one could be deemed to be OK and the other is proven not OK is illogical.

[Ursa Major]

I tend to think like you. If something says gluten-free, I believe that it should never intentionally contain anything that may have gluten. Like wheat starch or wheat germ oil.

In Scandinavia, they have a limit of 200ppm for products aimed at people with celiac disease. I read of a big celiac conference, where people came from all over the world. Gluten free food was provided. Most of the people from North America got sick, because they are used to actually really being gluten-free.

I have read research that stated that when they tested the food, that 'only' 1 out of 10 people gets villi damage from that kind of food. And they thought that was perfectly acceptable. I disagree with that.

I do eat buckwheat bread that is made here in Canada on shared equipment. The site explains in detail how they make sure that cross contamination doesn't happen. My granddaughter pigged out on that bread when I took her travelling (her mother doesn't buy gluten-free bread, because it gets too expensive with five kids and her being gluten-free). Emily gets stomach aches and severe diarrhea from cc. She was fine eating that bread. And so am I.

So, products made on shared lines don't necessarily contain gluten and can be perfectly safe. But if a product says it contains wheat starch, even though they claim that it doesn't have any gluten left in it, I wouldn't trust it at all.

And some people react to amounts of less than 20ppm as well, never mind 200!

[lizard00]

I agree with you two, also. I think that if something can claim to be gluten-free, it should be. That being said, I can understand the 20ppm standard here. (I still don't agree with it) It is the smallest measurable amount of gluten that is still cost effective. So, yes, we remain at the mercy of corporations. I am thankful, however, that our current standard is not 200ppm, as it is in some European countries. The new allergen laws have greatly eased our shopping trips, but there is still room for improvement, and I do believe that companies will rise to the challenge.

I also think that we will see more allergen free brands coming out, because if nothing else, entrepeneurs see the huge market waiting to be tapped. I get so excited when I see "Enjoy Life" in a mainstream store, because that tells me the market is growing and being supported. Which will in turn force more truly allergen free items. And enough people are sensitive to that "single crumb" that the quality will only continue to improve.

That's my .02, for what it's worth.

[psawyer]

While I understand the hope for a guarantee of absolutely zero gluten content, and believe that it may be possible to achieve it, it cannot be proven.

To verify the gluten content of any product, you must conduct a test on a sample to see if any gluten is present. The very fact that you are testing only a sample introduces the chance for error, just like a biopsy of the small intestine looking for damaged villi may not find any even if they are there.

No test can ever prove the total absence of a substance at the molecular level. I can check my back yard and say with certainty that there are no elephants there. Elephants are very large, visible to the naked eye, and easily counted.

How many gliadin molecules are in my yard? My neighbors eat outside, and they eat ordinary bread. I'm sure there is at least one, so my yard is not "gluten free."

So, if we test rigorously for gluten content, with a test that detects 20 ppm (without raising the cost of the product beyond reach), is the product gluten-free? I can only say that it tests below 20 ppm.

Would you rather that I did not test at all? Then I would not have to tell you about the detection level of the test. I could just claim "gluten free" and hope it were true. I would not know anything for sure, and neither would you.

[home-based-mom]

I love it that many of you agree with me on the zero level, and I appreciate that Peter does not, BUT . . .

You are all missing the point. I think.

The question is, how can 20 ppm be considered safe, when the cc level from scrubbed utensils that cannot possibly contaminate to even that high a level has been so thoroughly documented to be unsafe?

[Ursa Major]

Peter, what I am saying is, that I wouldn't eat food that has wheat starch in it, as there is no way it is actually really gluten-free. As far as I am concerned, if no wheat, rye, barley (usually in the form of malt) is purposely put into food, and the company is very careful about cc, then I would eat the food.

I don't so much care about the testing, but rather don't like the attitude of companies that don't do their best in keeping things gluten-free, because a little bit is allowed. Like Rice Dream, who still processes it with barley malt, but now they can put gluten-free on their product, because it contains less than 20ppm of gluten. And they put it in on purpose! I think that stinks.

[lizard00]

The question is, how can 20 ppm be considered safe, when the cc level from scrubbed utensils that cannot possibly contaminate to even that high a level has been so thoroughly documented to be unsafe?

I see your point.

And I have to admit, I have never gotten sick from my kitchen. I did not buy new pots or pans, for that matter I didn't buy anything new. (I'm pretty sure I'll be scrutinized for that statement) But most of my stuff goes through the dishwasher, or I clean it myself. I have wondered that too. I can see the obvious one, like a toaster, which I do not use anymore, but after it's been sterilized a few times, wouldn't it stand to reason that any trace would be gone?

[Rachel--24]

The question is, how can 20 ppm be considered safe, when the cc level from scrubbed utensils that cannot possibly contaminate to even that high a level has been so thoroughly documented to be unsafe?

I get what you're saying...BUT....how do you know a contaminated utensil or cookware is less than 20 ppm? You wouldnt know that without testing it.

Something like a colander cant be cleaned 100% because you cant possibly clean each of those tiny holes....and why would you want to even try....much easier to buy a new one.

A scratched pot that might have gluten in the crevices....can you get it all out? Is whats left in there less than 20 ppm?? How would you know without testing it?

A wooden spoon thats been used to prepare gluteney foods over and over again....can you possibly remove all traces of gluten? Even if you scrubbed it over and over...how would you know that whats left is under 20 ppm??

The point is that you cant verify this without testing the item.

Thats why we should be thankful that at least some companies are doing just that...to ensure that the product is as safe as they can possibly make it...while still keeping the product in a price range that is affordable.

[missy'smom]

I am concerned about the new law.

I have reacted to a product that was tested to be 5ppm or less and made on shared equipment that was cleaned. So, I won't take a risk with 20ppm or 200ppm. It may be gluten-free but if it's not I will be sick and it's not worth the risk. I don't care how much it takes to cause damage. I know that it takes very little(for me) to cause symptoms that significantly impact my quality of life. I totally understand and agree on many points with the arguments for testing. I also second Ursa's concern about companies getting lazy. In the end though it all comes down to my health and I will do anything I can to minimize or eliminate any risk. If that means fewer choices and going without, that's what I'll do. My life is not about products or ingredients.

[ive]

I know it is wishfull thinking but I do react to products made on shared equipment and it would make my life a lot easier if the label would consists of the following statements:

- list of the ingredients in the product with wheat, rye, barly and oats and other allergens in bold font;

- statement about whether this product shared equipment or line with wheat, rye, barley and oats;

- statement about whether the product is produced in the same facility as wheat, rye, barley and oats (this might be too much to ask)

If the statement about shared equipment would become mandatory, I would be able to make my own decision about buying this product. If there is no cross-contamination in the product there shouldn't be any gluten. It is more important for me to know if there is possibility for cross-contamination than to know whether just one of the samples of this product tested to be less than 20 ppm.

Also some members said earlier that it is not possible to test the product beyond 20 ppm. As far as I know, Australia considers product to be gluten-free if it contains less than 5ppm. So it is possible to test below 20 ppm, it is probably more expensive but 20 ppm is not the lowest possible threshold for testing.

[Ursa Major]

The only reason they have decided to make 20ppm the limit when declaring foods gluten-free is, that they truly think that food is safe for us if it contains less than 20ppm. Whoever 'they' are, they are wrong.

Obviously, the claim that you can't test for gluten below that is simply untrue.

[MaryJones2]

Personally I don

[Leslie-FL]

I have read research that stated that when they tested the food, that 'only' 1 out of 10 people gets villi damage from that kind of food. And they thought that was perfectly acceptable. I disagree with that.

I'm with you on this -- 1 out of 10 people getting damage is 1 too many.

[home-based-mom]

I know it is wishfull thinking but I do react to products made on shared equipment and it would make my life a lot easier if the label would consists of the following statements:

- list of the ingredients in the product with wheat, rye, barly and oats and other allergens in bold font;

- statement about whether this product shared equipment or line with wheat, rye, barley and oats;

- statement about whether the product is produced in the same facility as wheat, rye, barley and oats (this might be too much to ask)

If the statement about shared equipment would become mandatory, I would be able to make my own decision about buying this product. If there is no cross-contamination in the product there shouldn't be any gluten. It is more important for me to know if there is possibility for cross-contamination than to know whether just one of the samples of this product tested to be less than 20 ppm.

Also some members said earlier that it is not possible to test the product beyond 20 ppm. As far as I know, Australia considers product to be gluten-free if it contains less than 5ppm. So it is possible to test below 20 ppm, it is probably more expensive but 20 ppm is not the lowest possible threshold for testing.

I would like to see this labeling as the mandatory version, too. It may never be possible to get an accurate assessment of a batch of something from a random sample, and it probably would always be different from batch to batch, anyway. Anecdotal experiences with Lay's chips are a good example. If the ingredients are all listed, allergens (current and future as they are added) are listed in bold, and the production facility information posted on the package, then we can all decide what to do based on our own needs.

Forget the ppm guesswork.

Only one out of 10 people damage their bodies with a given product? What kind of safety regulation is that?

[Ursa Major]

The problem with any brand of chips is this: If the chips are just plain and are not produced in a facility that also produces wheat, they are safe (or should be, but aren't always).

But I read that chips that have coatings (like ketchup, barbecue, sour cream and onion etc.) are never gluten-free. The reason is, that they use gluten to make those flavourings stick to the chips!

Manufacturers don't have to declare that gluten as an ingredient, because it is not an official ingredient. They couldn't care less that people who are gluten intolerant get sick from that 'glue'.

So, you can't always trust ingredients lists, because there are often hidden ingredients.

If it was law that EVERY ingredient, even the hidden ones, have to be included in the list, we would be much safer.

Before I knew this I was glutened a few times by flavoured chips. Good thing I don't really eat chips for the most part, because I shouldn't eat potatoes to begin with.

I find that I have a problem with flavoured rice crackers, too. Do they do the same thing?

[kbtoyssni]

I think the issue with cc in spoons and other kitchen items is that *some* people will react to those very low levels. Some will not, but I always recommend people replace those items because you never know if that's the 1 in 10 person who will get sick. It's not worth the risk to me. And a small amount of gluten from the pot and the spoon and the collender can add up to being over the reaction limit for a person.

I didn't replace my pots or tupperware and was fine. I'm not very reactive, but recently I was eating rice manufactured on shared equipment. I didn't feel sick right away, but my joints gradually started getting more and more painful so obviously I was getting some damage the first few times I ate the rice even though I didn't know it. I'm guessing the small amounts of CC I get do cause damage even when I don't get sick, and I'd rather not take that risk.

Trouble is that it's so hard to test how many ppm will cause damage in people since we all seem to vary in our tolerances. And you won't find me volunteering for a study on how many ppm cause damage!

[gabby]

I was chatting to a friend, who happens to be a lawyer, about this ingredient list business. To my surprise, this is what he explained to me:

An ingredient list on a product is not a simple listing of ingredients. An ingredient list is actually a legal document , and every single word, phrase, term is stringently crafted by teams of lawyers. This legal document is not there to help or inform customers. It is there because the law requires it to be there. And manufacturers only include what they are legally bound to include, using the wording as required by the law. And the law is very very specific. And it changes.

Hope this helps!

[cyberprof]

I think the issue with cc in spoons and other kitchen items is that *some* people will react to those very low levels. Some will not, but I always recommend people replace those items because you never know if that's the 1 in 10 person who will get sick. It's not worth the risk to me. And a small amount of gluten from the pot and the spoon and the collender can add up to being over the reaction limit for a person.

I didn't replace my pots or tupperware and was fine. I'm not very reactive, but recently I was eating rice manufactured on shared equipment. I didn't feel sick right away, but my joints gradually started getting more and more painful so obviously I was getting some damage the first few times I ate the rice even though I didn't know it. I'm guessing the small amounts of CC I get do cause damage even when I don't get sick, and I'd rather not take that risk.

Trouble is that it's so hard to test how many ppm will cause damage in people since we all seem to vary in our tolerances. And you won't find me volunteering for a study on how many ppm cause damage!

kbtoyssni

ALERT temporary thread hijack-

It is SO REWARDING to see you in the picture with your cap and gown!

You stuck with it and finished and you should be proud.

Hijack complete.

Please return to your regularly scheduled program.

~Laura

[missy'smom]

I know it is wishfull thinking but I do react to products made on shared equipment and it would make my life a lot easier if the label would consists of the following statements:

- list of the ingredients in the product with wheat, rye, barly and oats and other allergens in bold font;

- statement about whether this product shared equipment or line with wheat, rye, barley and oats;

- statement about whether the product is produced in the same facility as wheat, rye, barley and oats (this might be too much to ask)

If the statement about shared equipment would become mandatory, I would be able to make my own decision about buying this product. If there is no cross-contamination in the product there shouldn't be any gluten. It is more important for me to know if there is possibility for cross-contamination than to know whether just one of the samples of this product tested to be less than 20 ppm.

Agreed. That would be so much more helpful.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

The 1 in 10 who suffered damage as a result of 200 ppm? How was that damage measured? If it was measured by biopsy, well, hey, we all know that the biopsies are hit and miss, right? So They happened to hit the right spots on 1 in 10. What if the other 9 had damage, too, but their damage didn't get biopsied, their still-healthy areas got biopsied?

If you ask me, the data is flawed if it is relying on biopsies.

[tom]

The 1 in 10 who suffered damage as a result of 200 ppm? How was that damage measured?

I didn't take the "1 in 10" as actual data - just a 'for-argument's-sake' ratio.

To me, the sentence read like "may as well replace those items, because you can't know in advance if you're in the x % of ppl who'd react".

[Fiddle-Faddle]

I'm just figuring that, whatever supposedly acceptable number they came up with, they got to it by using biopsies for their data (to show damage). I bet most celiacs WOULD react to 200 ppm.

[kbtoyssni]

kbtoyssni

ALERT temporary thread hijack-

It is SO REWARDING to see you in the picture with your cap and gown!

You stuck with it and finished and you should be proud.

Hijack complete.

Please return to your regularly scheduled program.

~Laura

Thank you! For those who don't know, I was in full time grad school when I got very sick from celiac. I dropped out, figured out I had celiac and spent nine months living with my parents getting better. I then moved out, got a job, went back to grad school part time while working and finally finished my degree this past May. So it wasn't just about the degree. It's about getting my life back on track, about finally putting those not-so-good years of my life behind me and moving on to doing whatever I want to do.

[jerseyangel]

Thank you! For those who don't know, I was in full time grad school when I got very sick from celiac. I dropped out, figured out I had celiac and spent nine months living with my parents getting better. I then moved out, got a job, went back to grad school part time while working and finally finished my degree this past May. So it wasn't just about the degree. It's about getting my life back on track, about finally putting those not-so-good years of my life behind me and moving on to doing whatever I want to do.

Wow--congratulations on a job well done!