The title of this posting should have been "US..." (as in United States), but the program assumes we can't type and automatically changes the second letter to lower case.
US issues draft Codex positions on gluten-free
By Lorraine Heller
9/26/2007- Standards for gluten-free foods must encompass all types of foods that do not contain gluten, said the US in its draft positions for the next session of a Codex Committee meeting.
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.a...-celiac-disease
Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I've been wondering about the status of this!
I know this has been discussed before... but, I still think that a "safe" level of gluten is laughable. The only items that should get the Gluten-free labeling are those that only contain ingredients that are naturally gluten-free AND are processed on dedicated gluten-free equipment. Maybe a second label (Very Low Gluten?) could be adopted for items that pass the 20ppm test and/or have the potential for CC. Otherwise, the gluten-free label is going to be useless for those people who are extremely sensitive.
QUOTE(mommyagain @ Sep 26 2007, 01:02 PM) 
I know this has been discussed before... but, I still think that a "safe" level of gluten is laughable. The only items that should get the Gluten-free labeling are those that only contain ingredients that are naturally gluten-free AND are processed on dedicated gluten-free equipment. Maybe a second label (Very Low Gluten?) could be adopted for items that pass the 20ppm test and/or have the potential for CC. Otherwise, the gluten-free label is going to be useless for those people who are extremely sensitive.
I know I posted on this a few months ago, I had read an article on Wegmans website, and they pretty much feel the same way you do. I agree. The article is still on their website, it is located under the food allergies area. It says letter to FDA or something.
QUOTE(mommyagain @ Sep 26 2007, 10:02 AM)
I know this has been discussed before... but, I still think that a "safe" level of gluten is laughable. The only items that should get the Gluten-free labeling are those that only contain ingredients that are naturally gluten-free AND are processed on dedicated gluten-free equipment. Maybe a second label (Very Low Gluten?) could be adopted for items that pass the 20ppm test and/or have the potential for CC. Otherwise, the gluten-free label is going to be useless for those people who are extremely sensitive.
those people still won't be able to *prove* that they have "no" gluten. the reason for a limit is so it can be tested again. the reason to require testing is purely legal - otherwise there's no way to prove when people are faking the rule out.
QUOTE(mommyagain @ Sep 26 2007, 12:02 PM)
I know this has been discussed before... but, I still think that a "safe" level of gluten is laughable. The only items that should get the Gluten-free labeling are those that only contain ingredients that are naturally gluten-free AND are processed on dedicated gluten-free equipment. Maybe a second label (Very Low Gluten?) could be adopted for items that pass the 20ppm test and/or have the potential for CC. Otherwise, the gluten-free label is going to be useless for those people who are extremely sensitive.
I was going to say the same thing as tarnelberry. I'm sure companies are required to test the gluten limits at a certain frequency, and it's impossible to test if things have zero gluten. I was actually pleased with the 20ppm limit. I think the UK has a 200ppm limit? (someone correct me if I'm wrong!) so this seemed pretty good to me. I was impressed that it was so low, especially after all that talk about making oats gluten-free. Speaking of oats... the article doesn't mention what was decided about them.
I was just thinking the same thing...what about Oats?