<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>
 
Hi all,
 
Just returned from the Codex meeting in Bonn -  Bad Godesberg where
representatives from countries all over the world discussed the "Proposed
draft revised standard for gluten-free foods", which is at step 3 of the
procedure.
 
Though there has been a lot of discussion about the draft standard, only
minor progress has been made.
 
Most discussions were focused on the definition of glutenfree and on the
acceptable level of contamination.
 
-    The definition of "gluten-free food" now has been changed in such a way
that apart from wheat, rye, crossbred varieties of these (triticale), barley
and [oats] now also the proteins from all other triticum species including
spelt and kamut are excluded (i.e.  included in the list of toxic cereals).
The definition has been modified in such a way that it will only apply to
cereal based product (including arrowroot, tapioca etc.).  I.e.  it will not
be possible to market a T-bone steak as "gluten-free" because it is not a
cereal based food.
 
-    The Codex Committee put "oats" in the definition now between square
brackets (a proposition of the Finnish delegation) which means that it will
probably be considered as non-toxic in the final version of the standard.
(My personal opinion about this is that although there has been a number of
excellent reports from Irish and Finnish groups about the toxicity
(non-toxicity) of oats, yet some doubts remain, and in any case one should be
well aware of contamination.  Producers of "rolled oats" in Europe state
"typical" levels of 10 wheat/rye or barley seeds / 100 gm oats and this
clearly results in more than 200 ppm gluten.  As oats will have to be
considered as "glutenfree by nature" (see next section), the lower
contamination limit mentioned there would apply.  By consequence there will
be little chance that oat-based products will meet the requirements of the
standard, even if they would be considered as non-toxic in the final version
of the standard.  Anyway they should be produced with dedicated transport and
production lines)
 
-    Another item which has been addressed was the gluten content of foods
labeled as "gluten free by nature", which are foods like buckwheat, corn or
rice flour.  There was much opposition against setting the limit for this
group at the same level as for the group of gluten free foods derived from
gluten containing cereals rendered gluten free, e.g.  wheat starch.  It was
argued that there should be an impetus to producers to avoid contamination.
Delegations agreed that the level for this category should go down to [20]
ppm.  The square brackets however mean that all these values are provisional,
and they will remain so until a reliable method of analysis has been
validated.
 
There has been a lot of lobbying around in the corridors by representatives
of the industry and the Union of European Celiac societies, but to my
perception in the end nobody was completely satisfied with the results
achieved.  Producers of GF food fear that it will be very hard to get raw
materials sufficiently free from contaminating gluten to produce gluten-free
baking mixes at a reasonable costs and the Celiacs Societies still favor a
somewhat higher but uniform level (50 ppm).  The proposal has now proceeded
to step 5 of the Codex procedure.  In 1998 further discussions will take
place.
 
PS Remember that Codex Standards serve as a guideline to help national
governments to set up national legislation, i.e. the Codex recommendations
always have to be implemented before coming into force.
 
I will put the final text of the proposal on my homage as soon as I have it
at my disposal. I let you know where and when.
 
Frederik Willem Janssen, Zutphen, The Netherlands.