<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

About a week ago I promised to post info about agenda item 4 (Gluten Free
Food) as dealt with at the meeting of Codex Alimentarius NFSDU (Nutrition
and Food for Special Dietary Uses) which was held in September in Berlin
Germany.
As usual this meeting starts on Monday and continues till Wednesday,
Thursday is a day off (time for the secretariat ro draw resolutions) and on
Friday these draft resolutions are discussed. Unfortunately I wasn't able
to stay till Friday. However, the resolutions as discussed on Friday were
handed to me afterwards however and I pass them with some corrective
changes accepted during that day.

For those of you who have no interest in reading this clerical stuff I
summarise: The proposed limits (20) for food glutenfree by nature and 200
for food "rendered glutenfree" will stay between square brackets (so no
decision has been made). The same holds for oats, awaiting further
toxicological data about its celiac-toxicity it should be considered as
toxic. The main obstacle for finalizing the standard is the lack of an
appropriate method of analysis. Progress has been made but still not to
that extent that enforcing agencies can be satisfied. Maybe we will see
some progress in the next 2 years!

Frederik Willem Janssen, The Netherlands


ALINORM 99/26

DRAFT REVISED STANDARD FOR
GLUTEN-FREE FOODS (Agenda Item 4)

        31. The Committee recalled that the Twenty-second Session of the CAC
adopted the Proposed Draft Standard for Gluten-Free Foods at Step 5 while
recommending that comments on methods of analysis and on amounts of gluten
in gluten free foods should be taken into account when finalising the
standard. The Committee noted that without an appropriate method of
analysis it was not scientifically justified to advance the Draft further.
        32. The Delegation of Sweden introduced their recent study on gluten
determination in foods by an enzyme immunoassay using a monoclonal antibody
against omega-gliadin (CRD 33), noting that the detection limit of the
method (ref. AOAC 991.19) was about 20 - 40 ppm and the repeatability was
acceptable. Some Delegations pointed out that the method presented raised
some technical concerns: it was performed only on wheat and due to this,
uncertainty exists as regards its applicability to other cereals. There
were also concerns about the reproducibility of the method. It measured
only omega-gliadin and other gliadins should also be taken into account.
The need of further improvement was raised. Spain expressed concern about
setting units where no method of analysis is available and not all the
different types of gliadins can be detected.
        33. The Committee noted that in some cases a proprietary method was the
most specific way to detect an analyte, such as in the case of gluten
detection. Since Codex had not endorsed these techniques as methods of
analysis of Codex, the CCMAS (Codex committee on Methods of Analysis and
Sampling) should consider this problem.
        34. Several delegations suggested that the Committee should ask FAO and
WHO to convene an Expert Consultation to address the issue of the level and
the method of analysis. Other delegations proposed to consult the CCMAS on
this issue. The Secretariat informed the Committee that on the request of
the CCFL (Codex committee on Food Labelling), JECFA (Joint expert committee
on Food Additives) was prepared to consider the question of
hypersensitivity at its 53rd Session (June 1999) and the intolerance to
gluten might be discussed in this context. The Secretariat recalled that
the role of the CCMAS was to endorse methods of analysis proposed by
specialised Committees and the CCNFSDU needed to specify the method.
        35. Several delegations and the Observer from the AAC (Association des
Amidonneries Cooperative) proposed that the discussion of this draft should
be adjourned until a reliable method of analysis became available. Other
delegations were in favour of continuing work on it in order to meet the
urgent need of the patients suffering from coeliac disease and proposed to
advance the proposed draft for a single level of 200 ppm to step 8. Taking
into account the absence of an appropriate and accurate method of analysis,
it was proposed to maintain the gluten free level at 200 ppm for all foods
and to include a new preamble suggesting the a revision of the standard
when a method of analysis or new scientific evidence became available.
        36. While concerning the proposed definition of "gluten-free" foods,
several delegations wanted to point out that the current approach was
confusing and misleading the consumer and that the level should be uniform
for all foods. However, other delegations and the Observer from AOECS
stressed the need for two levels with regard to the naturally gluten free
foods and the products which had been rendered gluten free. The Committee
noted that the proposed term "gluten-free" might mislead the consumer and
recognised that the term "low or reduced in gluten" should be considered.
        37. The Observer from AOECS, supported by some delegations, expressed the
view that the level of 200 ppm for all gluten-free foods was too high to
protect coeliacs and the gluten level should refer only to the end product
for better consumer protection.
        38. The Delegation of Finland proposed to remove the oats from the list as
scientific studies showed that oats can be tolerated by celiacs and allows
to provide dietary fibres for
coeliacs. The Observer from AOECS, supported by some delegations, stressed
that the square brackets on oats should be removed as oats might have
negative impact on the health of coeliacs and that the medical experts had
not reached consensus on this issue.
        39. The Committee recognised that the development of reliable method of
analysis of gluten was the key point of this discussion and that the
development of the method should be encouraged by all means.

Status of the Draft Revised Standard for Gluten-Free Foods

        40. The Committee agreed to leave the text of the draft as it was in
CX/NFSDU 98/4 and to return it to Step 6 for further consideration. The
Committee also agreed that the question regarding the proprietary
techniques should be raised to the CCMAS as a general matter.

The following documents were discussed during the meeting: CX/NFSDU 98/4 -
Add 1 (Comments from Australia, Spain, UK, AAC, ISDI); CX/NFSDU 98/4 - Add
2 (AOECS); CRD 3 (Uruguay, ISDI); CRD 13 (USA); CRD 21 (Spain); CRD 33 =
CRD 42 (Sweden); CRD 44 (India); CRD 51 (Norway).