GardeningForHealth

And don't forget the last name in that list of authors: Alessio Fasano (the link cuts his name off). Dr. Fasano is the doctor behind all of this research and he is the one who discovered zonulin.

Dr Fasano and all the authors, through their CDGEMM study, have possibly cracked the code of Celiac Disease and possibly many other autoimmune diseases, by discovering 5 bacterial species that have been shown in the control subjects to prevent the development of Celiac Disease, and to calm inflammation when gluten is present. 

I only hope that the time from this discovery to incorporation of this into a probiotic is not long, hopefully a year or less. I will be among the first to use it.

On 5/31/2022 at 12:12 PM, Scott Adams said:

Yes, the spices in the study were tested for gluten.

Can you point out where the spices were tested for gluten? I just read the study and I did not see where they had first checked the spices to see if they were cross-contaminated with gluten.

And the problem is, the same tests they are doing to see if anti-gliadin antibodies will bind to spice proteins is the same test they would use to check for gluten-cross contamination in the spices.

13 hours ago, LPat02 said:

The bagels at this time are safe. 

I don't think that we can safely conclude that at this time. I have seen others on the forum comment in posts that go back 2-3 years that they have been glutened by "gluten-free" products from Trader Joe's, and now their bagels were found via one of the tests to contain gluten. So, given that broader context, the conclusion that is most logical is that we have to exercise caution about that brand and any other brands that were found to contain gluten by at least one of the tests.

I think at this point that anyone's conclusions about any test being "false positive" or "safe" or "definitely unsafe" is not based on sufficient evidence, and the correct conclusion is "possibly dangerous; use caution." 

We need to hear more from the scientists who are doing these tests, having them explain the differences between the tests, when it is appropriate to use various proteins and why, and whether or not we can interpret the G12 without protein tests as "false positives," and if so, why. 

As a side note, however, I do not think that the G12 test (or maybe any of the tests?) have been studied against clinical outcomes, so it may not yet be known how closely the antibodies in these tests can predict clinical outcomes. I would love to hear from scientists about this subject.

Because ultimately the question we are trying to answer when it comes to these tests is, "Is there any substance present in the food that will lead to a clinical outcome (illness)?"

I think that GFWD's suggestion that the G12 test without added protein may be a false positive is not grounded in facts and does not best serve those with Celiac and NCGS. Why? Because when it comes to our health, we need to err on the side of caution. Assuming that a positive result may be a false positive is not erring on the side of caution.

Gluten-Free Watchdog's suggestion that the test may have been a false positive makes me feel that perhaps Gluten-Free Watchdog does not take gluten exposures as seriously as it should, and frankly I am both surprised and disappointed in their response.

Very soon, there will finally be one or more medications that receive FDA approval for the treatment of Celiac Disease.

However, for those of us such as myself who tested positive for the Celiac Panel, but never followed up with an endoscopy to confirm, we do not have a diagnosis of Celiac Disease. Therefore, we will not have access to these medications.

In order to gain access to FDA-approved medications for the treatment of Celiac Disease, an official diagnosis of Celiac Disease will be required. This will require going on a gluten challenge. 

However, how are folks like myself supposed to get through a gluten challenge if we react violently, such as vomiting? The last time I ate a large amount of gluten was when a mexican chain restaurant served me a meal with a burrito that they claimed was made with a gluten-free tortilla, but that tortilla was actually whole wheat. Starting at about 1 hour and 40 mins later, I began vomiting. That vomiting lasted for the next 6 hours. 

I cannot subject myself to that again, thus I am in a predicament. There is at least one medication (not yet available) for Celiac Disease that I am very interested in and want access to, when it becomes available. 

Voluntary dismissal filed by plaintiff July 23 2024. Plaintiff has withdrawn its lawsuit. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/54093693/Shaianne_Starks_v_Trader_Joes_Company

TLDR: It seems that this phenomenon of different tests getting different results is common, and gluten testing should be using more than one type of ELISA test to detect gluten anyway. 

In light of the info in the rest of this post, my own curiosity on this matter is now satisfied; to me, all the results are accurate, including the G12 without-milk-positive result, and this means that those brands found by Moms Across America, and confirmed by GFWD via their G12 without-milk ELISA test (although GFWD erroneously suggested it was a false positive) are correct--they contain gluten, and those products must now be viewed with caution.

------------------------------------------------------------

Some info I dug up for context:

Quote

A significant difference (p < 0.05) in gluten content was observed for these gluten-containing food products. Reproducibility issues suggest that it is necessary to use several ELISA kits for the accurate detection and quantification of gluten in various food products rather than using one ELISA kit.

https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/1/108

A brochure from Romer Labs, maker of the G12 ELISA test:

Quote

 

Over the years, a few different antibodies became standard in gluten testing. Initially, the Skerritt antibody was most commonly used and tests based on it had Type 1 method status. It was replaced by the R5 antibody, an antibody developed in cooperation with the PWG. The R5 antibody was raised against rye secalin, but showed strong cross reactivity to wheat gliadin. It became quickly the “consensus antibody”, seen by many as the one, giving the correct answers. However, the change of the concept, detecting the immunotoxic peptides playing a role in the pathogenesis of celiac disease, instead of detection of prolamins, led to the development of a next generation of antibodies. The G12 antibody belongs to this new generation.

The G12 antibody specifically recognizes the toxic fragment of the gliadin protein present in gluten. This fragment (called 33-mer) was identified by the University of Stanford and published in a paper 2002 in Science. Using the knowledge from this publication, the G12 antibody was raised against this 33-mer peptide. In contrast, the R5 antibody was raised against a secalin extract. The epitope it reacts with was later identified as the QQPFP pentapeptide. The distinction between the two antibodies relates to the fact that the G12 antibody specifically targets the toxic fragment that triggers the auto-immune reaction in celiac patients, rather than a peptide sequence unrelated to clinical outcomes.

Detection of Oats
There is an ongoing debate concerning the presence or absence of gluten in oat. In fact, current antibodies were not recommended for the detection of gluten in oat. The G12 antibody has shed light on this debate due to its specificity for potentially immunotoxic sequences. G12 shows also a higher affinity to these sequences, which makes it much more sensitive, compared to other antibodies. It seems, that G12 can recognize oat varieties which trigger response in celiacs, while other oat varieties which are not causing any celiac response are not detected.

 

https://foodriskmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/AQ-Gluten-G12-Brochure-13.pdf

GFW is claiming in their link here https://www.glutenfreewatchdog.org/product/trader-joes-gluten-free-almost-everything-bagels-2024/1348 that the G12 test without milk additive was the only positive test and then they are claiming here https://www.glutenfreewatchdog.org/news/correcting-the-record-gluten-free-watchdogs-testing-of-trader-joes-gluten-free-almost-everything-bagels/ that this result may have been a false positive.

But is this assumption correct? 

The R5 vs G12 ELISA tests and the subject of "non-specific binding" are outside of my knowledge, but I wonder why the G12 test needs milk to match the results of the R5 test.

Is one test more accurate than the other?

What antibodies are these tests using? Where did the antibodies come from? 

If the R5 and G12 tests do not match each other, are we to trust one over the other? And if so, why? And if we are to trust "with milk" or "without milk," why is that? 

Why should we interpret the positive G12 "without milk" test as a false positive? 

Gluten Free Watchdog has issued an update: https://www.glutenfreewatchdog.org/news/correcting-the-record-gluten-free-watchdogs-testing-of-trader-joes-gluten-free-almost-everything-bagels/

So now the issue seems to be boiling down to R5 Elisa testing method vs G12 Elisa testing method, which are producing different results under different conditions.

HRI needs to re-do their testing, while GFW needs to test the same samples that HRI did, and meanwhile, GFCO needs to order independent testing outside of their certification program. Instead of everybody digging their heels in, lets see some cooperation in the gluten-free community and get some definitive answers.

So now its a he said she said. There shouldn't be this kind of drama in food safety testing. There is too much at stake.

Eliminate Final Step-Down from the program, and like trents said, add random unannounced testing.

Articles like this are very helpful.