<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>
Further comments on this topic. They have been de-identified. I have
emailed the publication to ask their opinion about Mary being misquoted.
Even if we are not unified, it is time to move on.
-Michael Thorn
-------------------------------------------------------------
When I was on the CSA governing board, one of my hardest tasks was
trying to get answers to anything. Of course, then, I was trying to
deal with XXXXXX and XXXX.
----------------------------------------------------------
I saw the article a day before your post to the list, and it made no
sense to me that Mary would say that. I figured she had to be misquoted.
So I wrote her and asked, and yesterday she replied in detail. Yes, she
was misquoted.
I butted heads with Mary and CSA in XXX when I was head of a XXXXXX,
and again in XXX when the chapter I now belong to was leaving CSA. But
I also believe in being fair and accurate. I would not have posted that
to the list without confirming with her what she actually said and what
CSA's position actually is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
I think you said it all, & kudos to you for speaking / "writing" out!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Thanks for posting this Michael. Mary S/CSA are not in-tune to the times
and it shows in her statements. With their attitude, celiacs will never
speak with one voice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
This is also the same Mary who said they proposed the food labeling
bill, and worked for it, when in fact they worked against it. I'm not
so sure it was a misstatement.
------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know, I do get the feeling they'd rather see no standards
adopted than a 20ppm standard, which is not surprising since they tried
to sabotage the allergen labeling law. And the GF standards are coming
about as a byproduct of the labeling law.
But I have to believe she was misquoted about it being nearly impossible
to detect 20ppm. It just doesn't make sense that she would say that.
----------------------------------
This is from the CSA website-
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to define the term
"gluten-free" for voluntary use in the labeling of foods.
The FDA will allow a food products to be labled GF if the level is below
20 ppm wheat, barley, rye.
The only risk free choice for people with celiac disease is a diet free
of the amino acid sequences that evoke an immune response. At this time
there is insufficient research about personal tolerance levels. There is
also insufficient food testing methods for risk free choices. The FDA's
regulation is based on food testing methods readily available to food
producers. The FDA's regulation means that consumers who are sensitive
to gluten at the level of 20 ppm would no longer be able to rely on
gluten-free claims to identify foods. A product labeled gluten-free
could test from 0ppm to 20ppm making personal risk difficult to access.
CSA's Recognition Seal Program verifies products status with below level
of detection by ELISA testing with a lower limit 3ppm with a gluten test
that is cross reactive with rye and barley. CSA also specifies no wheat,
barley, rye and oats "No WBRO" or their crosses and derivatives in
product, processing and packaging to qualify for the seal.
*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
|
