<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>
About a dozen members responded to my post on October 2 titled "Gluten-free
labeling falls to FDA rule." Below I've excerpted some of the comments
(edited for brevity) I received. In general, most expressed mistrust and
frustration with inaccurate or misleading labels and annoyance with Root's
response to the rule. I find it interesting that three comments used the
term "weasel" in reference to Root's change in labeling. Most agreed that
there would be fewer products labeled GF; for some this was seen as good
progress, others saw it as problematic.
MO:
I disagree that fewer products will end up being labeled "gluten-free" -
long run, most likely there will more products, and they will be safer than
the ones that carelessly used "gluten-free" that I've seen in the past. The
term now has teeth, and if companies screw up they can be penalized.
Before the rules went into effect, anybody could slap the term "gluten-free"
on anything, because it had no legal meaning. I've heard too many people's
horror stories about foods labeled "gluten-free" to be sorry that we'll see
fewer such products in the short term.
Personally I don't ever buy baked goods made on shared equipment.no baked
goods on earth are worth the problems a cross-contaminated cookie once
caused my kid.
And I've never relied on marketing labels to make purchase decisions. I skip
the front label, and go to the back, looking closely at ingredients and
allergen statements, and if I'm not comfortable with what I read, we skip
it.
GM:
As a conscientious Celiac, I agree with you. I already avoid "wheat-free"
products and do look for trusted GF labels as well as re-checking the
ingredients to be certain an error has not been made. Perhaps we should
bombard the "wheat-free" companies with phone calls to cause them to spend
staff time answering our questions for more details about their facilities,
etc. It might behoove them to stop the game playing.
It is increasingly more difficult to eat at places with "GF" items on their
menus as it seems many are responding to the non-celiac market and actually
cross contaminate. I want them to see dollars walking back out the door
because they are in a sense practicing a form of false advertising when they
really have no clue what "gluten-free" means.
GW :
This was a major concern of the Celiac Support Association before the law
was written. However, no one wanted to listen to them. The Celiac Support
Association had suggested that FDA require every product to include the
source of the ingredient-then we would know what is in the product.
MB:
Since I am very sensitive, I learned the hard way a long time ago that many
products labeled "gluten-free" were not. And this includes some well-known
"GF" brands. Eventually, some of these brands 'fessed-up that they were made
in shared facilities. I now expect some to drop the "GF" claim; others have
modified their facilities and practices to actually become what they used to
only claim to be. Since the FDA does NOT require testing, the only reason a
product that used to claim GF status would now be weaseling out is because
their own knowledge of their facilities or processes causes them to know or
suspect that the product is not actually GF.
Since those early years, I now only buy shared facilities-made products if
either 1) they are certified by the GF Certification Org. from GIG or 2) the
label lists possible allergen contaminants and wheat is not one of them.
Otherwise, it's gluten free and made in dedicated plants for me. Or
naturally gluten free, of course. "No GF ingredient" or "wheat-free" or any
other weasel words certainly won't cut it for me.
SA:
Being closely connected with many manufacturers, I have long thought that
strict labelling laws would cause many companies to drop the use of the term
"gluten-free" on their labels--why risk the liability and spend the extra
money to test? There are those who are now pushing hard for a 5ppm law. If
that happens I predict a mass exodus from using the term on product labels.
JV:
My initial reaction is to contact Roots (and other businesses that make
similar changes) and complain. They are clearly avoiding the intent of the
law and hoping that their customers will forgive them and continue to
purchase their products. I think they should learn that this is
unacceptable.
It really frosts me when a food or cosmetics firm refuses to give straight
answers about gluten content and instead directs the consumer to contact
their health professional. That seems to imply that the health professional
has access to the business's products' gluten content that the business
refuses to share with the consumer. I have half a mind to suggest that we
all contact our doctors every time we see one of these comments until
doctors everywhere rise up and protest. This type of weasel wording
abdicates responsibility for providing ingredient information in favor of
forcing would-be consumers to rack up ridiculous medical bills asking
doctors questions they cannot answer.
AV:
I learned it hard way. I just don't trust those "gluten free" labels. My
life style is: Eat to live; not vice versa.
Perhaps I am too sensitive, but for me is nothing safe, unless I made it
from scratch.
It should be criminal offence for misleading people and put their health in
jeopardy, without facing the consequences.
JL:
Agree completely. I live near a Roots and decided against eating their gf
bake shop treats since it is not a dedicated bakery. ,,,what you say about
the response to the FDA gf rule is true. Seems to be backfiring.
SF:
If we could try to not buy the foods that no longer say "gluten free", maybe
the drop in sales might get the product labelers and mfg. attention. I'm
not saying boycott, because some kids are particular on what products they
eat, but maybe those of us who are adult Celiacs could bring some financial
influence to bear.
Pam Newbury
*Support summarization of posts, reply to the SENDER not the Celiac List *
Archives are at: Http://Listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?LIST=CELIAC
|
