Kissing Without Gluten

Four years ago today, my husband took me on our second date. We were going to meet at Carrabba’s after I went to our local Celiac Support Group Meeting. He was working late anyway, so meeting for dinner after 8pm wasn’t a big deal. I said I would send him a text when I left so he could meet me there. I thought he worked right down the road from the restaurant so he would for sure beat me there because I was about five miles away. I made it to the restaurant, was seated, ordered wine, and had nervously checked my phone several times before he finally showed up. I was annoyed to say the least. As far as I was concerned, he was then late. I later found out his office was actually a couple miles down the road, and that he is notorious for saying he’s leaving work and then doing “one more thing” that takes much longer than expected.

I don’t remember what I ordered, but I do remember he got lasagna. I’m not sure why I remember that except that when he walked me to my car after dinner, he asked me if he could kiss me, and I told him he could not because he just ate gluten. He never ate gluten on a date with me again, and he began brushing his teeth prior to seeing me. Eventually, he just stopped eating it on days he would see me because it was easier. That turned into him rarely eating gluten when our relationship grew more serious. The poor guy eventually figured out gluten makes him really sick, so he’s 100% gluten free now too.

Why do I bring up this story? I’ve seen a lot of people asking about kissing those who’ve consumed lately. They question whether or not doing this can make you sick.

A recent conversation regarding kissing and gluten. 

There are no scientific studies on this matter that I know of, but I’ve always taken the stance that I’d rather be safe than sorry. When you eat, there is almost always at least some of what you’ve consumed retained in your mouth. Even a quick peck on the lips could transfer an errant crumb that remained on the other individuals lips. Go as far as french kissing, and you’re highly likely to wind up with some of their food remnants in your own mouth and then swallow them. Then, BAM, you’re sick.

There are different thoughts as to how to get rid of the risk, but it’s ultimately up to making sure the mouth is cleaned as thoroughly as possible if the other individual has consumed gluten. The actual method doesn’t matter so much as the thoroughness and effectiveness of the cleaning method. Did they simply brush for 15 seconds in an effort to “kill” that evil gluten with their toothpaste and make their mouth smell minty fresh or did they swish and gargle with water multiple times and then wash their face to remove anything that might have remained? In that situation, I wouldn’t kiss the individual who brushed, but I would the one who swished with water. Toothpaste can’t “kill” gluten (nothing can), and I don’t really care if their mouth is minty fresh--I care if all the gluten is gone.

I feel incredibly lucky that we have a 100% gluten free home when I see how many people continually get sick from cross contamination in their own home. I know a shared household is completely feasible, but I’m already a naturally anxious person and my anxiety level was always very high when there was gluten in my home. I also know that a gluten free significant other is not necessary.

Is Celiac Disease a Disability?

On December 28th, an article was published on legalnewsline.com with information regarding the PF Changs lawsuit.  Most of the comments I've seen up to this point are of individuals referencing the case that was used as a precedent to this case (a student sued Lesley University regarding their lack of gluten free options on the schools meal plans), and I've decided to write in an attempt to clear things up. It's become obvious to me that people are either not reading the article in its entirety, they're only reading the title, or they're only reading comments rather than anything in the article. If you were to read the article in it's entirety, I think it would make more sense.

First, in case anyone chooses to only read a small portion of this (as it seems most people do with a lot of things on the internet), I'd like to summarize what I believe is the point of the article. The PF Chang's case was ultimately dismissed. This was not a statement that celiac disease is not a disability, but rather that gluten-free menu items are not the same as other menu items. Restaurants have the right to charge what they determine is appropriate for items. The end of the article states the following:

In the P.F. Chang's case, Judge Ronald Whyte denied P.F. Chang’s motion to dismiss because, he wrote, that although the court had not found specific information proving that celiac disease constituted a disability under the ADA, the “plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support her claim that she has a disability that impacts a major life activity.”

Whyte noted “on a more complete factual record, the court might reach a different conclusion.” He also stated that it may be difficult, or impossible for Phillips to prove her claims.

“The ultimate question is whether P.F. Chang’s, in providing gluten-free meals, is providing different products or whether the price differential with regular meals is a pretext for discrimination against those with celiac disease,” Whyte wrote.

Gluten-free menu items can not include or be exposed to wheat, barley, rye or any hybrid of these grains.

“The evidence may establish that gluten-free items are different products for which defendant can charge what it determines is appropriate,” Whyte wrote. “That would not be discriminating against a customer with celiac disease because the gluten-free meals are offered to all customers at the same price.”

Still reading? Here's a little more of the nitty gritty along with my opinions.

Is this fair? I guess it depends on how you look at it. Would you rather have options and pay a little bit extra, or would you rather not have the options at all? Of course restaurants could choose to provide gluten free options for the same price as their regular menu items, but it does ultimately cost them more to ensure you receive a truly gluten free meal. Regular menu items can simply be prepared. Gluten free items usually require one person follow the meal from start to finish. They must use a dedicated area and/or ensure the preparation and cooking areas are clean and free of any sort of contamination. Think about what is necessary for a friend or family member to prepare food that is safe for you to consume--now think about how many people simply aren't willing to go to the extra effort. Do you blame restaurants for not offering options or for needing to charge extra?

So what does all this have to do with the case involving the Lesley University settlement? It really doesn't have a lot to do with it except that the PF Chang's case was filed with the Lesley University case as a legal precedent.

“The Lesley University settlement enforces the rights of students whose food allergies were disabilities,” Rodenbush said. “It doesn’t necessarily make celiac disease a disability in all cases.”

Ultimately, someone attending a university that requires students to purchase a meal plan must accommodate an individuals need for a safe gluten free meal. On the other hand, a restaurant does not have to accommodate an individual choosing to eat there. If a restaurant chooses to make options available, they have every right to charge extra if necessary. If a consumer does not want to pay extra, they have the option of choosing to eat elsewhere. No one is forcing them to eat there. In the case of the student with a meal plan, they were being forced as part of a policy.

In my opinion, if the plaintiff had won this case, it would have opened the door for additional lawsuits against restaurants that don't have any gluten free options. While it would be nice to be able to eat anywhere, it's simply not feasible (at least not right now). Do we really want the whole world to hate the gluten free community because we're demanding options that could potentially cause restaurants to close because they aren't equipped to accommodate us?

So, is celiac disease a disability? Based on this decision, the judge ruled that it is not a disability in all cases. I'm trying to think of similar examples pertaining to other disabilities where accommodations in all situations. I'd like to ask my readers for examples you can think of--when is a disability not a disability in the eyes of the law?

**quoted information is from this link also linked above

ETA: My husband thought of a potential example: restaurants are not required to include braille on their menus for the blind. Is this a time when needs don't have to be accommodated?

The Teal Pumpkin Project

Tomorrow is Halloween, so I thought I'd write up something quick as a reminder of what the Teal Pumpkin Project is all about because I've seen so many misunderstandings.

Our door with the Teal Pumpkin Project sign

First the basics.

• According to FARE (Food Allergy Research & Education), "the Teal Pumpkin Project raises awareness of food allergies and promotions inclusion of all trick-or-treaters throughout the Halloween season." 
• The purpose is to have non-food treats available for trick-or-treaters.

Now for my comments... the biggest misunderstanding I have seen is that individuals think that the purpose is to provide allergy-friendly treats. This is incorrect--the purpose is to have non-food items. The problem with having any type of food is that it is not inclusive of all individuals with food allergies because there are allergies/intolerances to every single food on earth. Providing non-food items means you're not excluding anyone with food allergies or intolerances. 

My second comment goes to all of those people who think this is ridiculous (feel free to read the comments on news articles if you're wondering what I'm talking about). This program is completely voluntary, and seeks to enhance inclusion. No one is forced to participate, and no one is telling anyone what they can and cannot give out on Halloween. It affects no one if you choose to participate except for those children who will actually feel included (which I would think would give anyone a warm fuzzy feeling to know kids aren't being left out). 

This all comes up because while I shopped for our goodies today, I heard a dad commenting that all of the food allergies today are ridiculous because those didn't exist when he was in school. His daughter then said that there was a boy in her class who has to carry an epi-pen, and he could die. The dad continued to say how ridiculous it was, and nothing would probably happen to the boy if he was exposed to the allergen. I wish I had had the guts to say something to them or at least applaud the girl for her concern over the boy and his safety. It was one of those moments where I was in too much shock to think of something useful to say.  

So what are we giving out? Our loot includes balloons for balloon animals (instructions included), glow sticks (bracelets, sticks, etc), sticky wall walkers, glow in the dark lizards, and mechanical pencils. We also got Smarties because it's one of the most allergy friendly candies available for all those kids who prefer candy instead of toys and can eat them. 

Our goodies we are passing out.

Our sign with the goodies in the bowl. Each child will choose two items. 

FDA Labeling Law Post 1: "Verbiage"

I get a lot of questions regarding the FDA labeling law and how it should be interpreted. Most of these answers can be found on the FDA website's Q&A page, but I thought I would cover some of them a little more in depth.

Today, I will be talking about "verbiage" because it is one I misunderstood until recently. This is the question and answer on the FDA website:

(Full text of this below if you'd like to copy and paste)

 Previously, my understanding was that any form of stating gluten free such as "naturally free of gluten" meant the same exact thing as "gluten free" meant. While researching the topic, I discovered I was wrong. I definitely want to look further into this. They state the statement needs to be "truthful and not misleading," but what does that ultimately mean? If it's made without gluten-containing ingredients, are they are allowed to say that with zero regard to manufacturing practices? Could it potentially have a large amount of cross contamination from another product made on the same lines?

On a sidenote, this is such a misunderstood topic that I read an argument regarding the use of a dash in stating gluten free and how it determined whether or not they needed to follow the labeling laws (as in with it or without it didn't need to: "gluten free" vs "gluten-free"--I can't remember which way they argued was correct).  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never read anything in the FDA guidelines pertaining to the use of dash when stating a product is gluten free.

As promised, here is the text of the verbiage above if you'd like to copy and paste the info:
Are statements like “made with no gluten-containing ingredients” or similarly “not made with gluten-containing ingredients” permitted on labels of foods bearing a gluten-free claim?
Yes. Neither the final rule nor FDA’s general food labeling regulations prohibit the use of a statement like “made with no gluten-containing ingredients” or “not made with gluten-containing ingredients” on any food products, provided that the statement is truthful and not misleading. However, unless the label of the food including such a statement also bears a gluten-free claim, consumers should not assume that the food meets all FDA requirements for the use of the “gluten-free” claim.

I was never thoroughly impressed with the labeling law, but it was definitely a huge step forward. It was something that was needed to avoid companies labeling anything as gluten free (even if it was a "regular" product--if you want to read a story of this happening, click here). My worry is what happens when companies start working around the rules so that they don't have to comply AND they're not breaking the law. It would be great if we could come together as a united gluten free community to encourage companies to make things as safe as possible while being as straightforward as possible.

I highly recommend using cautious when purchasing an item that does not specifically state gluten-free. Research the product just as you would any product that did not bear any type of gluten claim by checking with the manufacturer and confirming their manufacturing practices and labeling policies. It is definitely always better to be safe than sick!

Cheerios Are Not Gluten-Free

I rarely post something quickly without taking at least a day or two to make sure I'm not overly angry, happy, or any other emotion that could be affecting how rational I'm being about the matter. I'm deciding to make an exception. I've been putting a lot of thought into all of the controversy surrounding Cheerios for the last several months, and I'll admit that I could not stop being angry or frustrated this whole time. I'm now at my tipping point.

I'm sure most people have heard at this point that General Mills has issued a recall on approximately 1.8 million boxes of Original and Honey Nut Cheerios. They were all made in their Lodi, California facility, and according to General Mills, all other boxes meet FDA regulations. If you'd like to read their recall "apology," you can do so on their blog here. If you want additional information, simply google "Cheerios Recall." I guarantee you'll find a plethora of information.

Why does all of this make me angry? There are far too many reasons to address them all, so I'll cover the top ones:

1. General Mills claimed the gluten-free Cheerios were being manufactured in one dedicated gluten-free facility. They're now revealing that there are multiple locations, although I have not yet seen an explanation from General Mills explaining this discrepancy in their story. The closest they've come is the following comment to a post on their blog post. 
   
2. They've claimed their testing methods included testing 12-18 boxes per "lot," yet when asked how the final product passed testing, they admitted they did not test any of the 17 lots included in the recall. The photo below is their response to someone on their Facebook page regarding the testing. 
   
3. Based on the information above, I now know that if you piece together all of their information, they are testing 12-18 boxes/lot. If there are 17 lots in 1.8 million boxes, then there are over 100,000 boxes per lot. Do they really think that testing 12-18 is adequate? That means they are testing less than .018% of the boxes. That would be the case if they are actually testing as often as they said they were. I invite them to tell me if I'm wrong. 
   

I'm not the only one upset about this. I could honestly go on and on, but I won't because simply complaining never fixes anything, so here is my "positive spin." I said previously that I had faith that General Mills could do this. I have MUCH less faith, but I still have faith they can do this. In my opinion, they need to take the following steps:

1. Admit they made a mistake, recall ALL boxes of "gluten-free" Cheerios, and take the time to fix their processes. It does not matter how long this takes, they need to make sure ALL boxes are gluten-free before claiming they are. This includes pulling the commercials that are pulling at the heartstrings of so many gluten-free consumers. 
2. In order to fix their processes, they should use the suggestions recommended by Tricia Thompson of Gluten Free Watchdog. She is still of the opinion that the problems can be fixed, but I get the impression she is losing faith as well. 
3. Find a way to make this up to all of the consumers who got sick because they trusted that a large manufacturer wouldn't lie to them. If General Mills wasn't lying, and they truly believed their processes were creating a gluten-free product, then they need to do A LOT more research prior to re-releasing the product. 

I want to hear your thoughts. I know many people are angry, but I want to hear construtive thoughts. How do we as a gluten-free community help General Mills to fix this mistake or simply admit defeat and go back to not labeling them as gluten-free?

**Update (10/6/15): According to Gluten Free Living magazine, the FDA has received at least one box that tested over the regulated limit of 20 ppm gluten. The level was 43 ppm which is over twice the legal limit. They have not disclosed if this box was part of the recall or not. 

Smoked Salmon & Hummus on Toast or Crackers

Today, I'm starting a new "meals" section of my blog. I know one of the most common questions for those newly diagnosed is "what will I eat?" I've been doing this long enough that eating gluten-free seems second nature to me at this point. Don't get me wrong, we still play the "what's for dinner" game which is by far my least favorite game in the whole wide world. We don't play this game because we only eat gluten free in this house, we play this game because we plan poorly. We aren't lucky enough to have the option of swinging through McDonalds or ordering pizza on the way home, but that is basically the only thing that makes us different from other non-gluten-free families.

We have a lot of "stand-by" meals at this point. They're usually quick and we always know they'll work.

Today for lunch, we had Smoked Salmon & Hummus on Crackers. The first time we made this, it was on a whim. I was shopping at Costco with my husband, and he was supposed to plan a great "date night" dinner. It was Friday, and he'd had a really long week. Meal planning was the last thing on his mind, and he hadn't done it. We were shopping for our "regular" items, and he was hoping to come across something we'd love.

Somehow, we wound up with smoked salmon and hummus in the cart, and it dawned on me that it would taste great on the Udi's bread we also had in the cart if we toasted it. With that, a new stand-by meal was born.

I had a craving for salmon today, so I decided it would be our lunch. This would also be a great opportunity to take a couple pictures and share the idea with my readers. I used Schar Table Crackers, Hannah Hommus, and Honey Smoked Salmon (that I've never seen anywhere but Costco, but I'm unsure of the brand). The three items are pictured below in case you're looking for them yourself. The hommus comes in a bulk box with something like 24 of the little containers pictured below.

Once it's all put together, it looks like this:

Some of the crackers were broken, and I didn't do the greatest job of "staging" it for a great looking picture, but this is what my lunch looked like:

On toast, it seems a bit more like a meal, whereas on crackers, it would make a great simple appetizer at a party. 

I'm going to do my best to post more of our "stand-by" meals. This one is definitely not a "typical" meal, so I thought it would make a great first post to encourage others to "think outside of the box." 

What are your stand-by meals? I'd love to hear ideas from others so we can add to our arsenal. I hope my ideas help you add to yours. 

My 100th Post

Wow! I can't believe I've made it to 100 posts. To go with that, I've finally redone the "look" of my page, and I reorganized it to make things easier to find. What was originally a whim, and a place to post my occasional thoughts seems to have become a somewhat regular part of my life. I want to be a source of positivity in the gluten-free world. I understand how hard it can be, and I understand how easy it can be to get sucked into negativity. I encourage you to avoid the negativity.

A recent video developed by NFCA is making the rounds, and I highly suggest everyone share it. ""Seriously, Celiac" explains in a simple way why it's important for family members of those with celiac disease to get tested. Go ahead and watch it...

The thing that struck a cord the most with me is when they brought up the "c word." Yes, cancer. I don't mention it to scare people, I mention it to encourage people to be proactive. Undiagnosed celiac disease and/or not adhering to a strict gluten-free diet dramatically increase your chances of developing intestinal cancer. 

So my 100th post goes out to all of those who haven't been tested. I understand that it can be incredibly difficult to get doctors to run the test, but what do you have to lose? GO GET TESTED! 

If you don't know what to ask for, check out information from the experts at the University of Chicago Celiac Disease Center.

Worst case scenario? The blood test comes back positive, and you need an endoscopy. If the endoscopy comes back positive, then you go on a gluten-free diet. You don't need medication, you don't need constant follow up appointments, you don't feel sick constantly. You go on a gluten free diet, and it's resolved. 

Have you already been diagnosed with celiac disease? Share this video, and encourage your family members to get tested. 

What's the worst case scenario for them? See above.