Wednesday, January 27, 2010

10 Questions for Author Michael Pollan - TIME

Michael Pollan

Alia Malley

Can you tell us what your current diet is? If it is not vegetarian, why not?

Scott Yanoff, MILWAUKEE

I still eat meat. But I eat a lot less. I have enormous respect for vegetarians, but I believe there are ways to eat meat that are good for you and good for the environment.

What's your guiltiest pleasure, and how do you rationalize it?

Kirsten Hagfors

KETCHUM, IDAHO

I like French fries, and I probably shouldn't eat them very often. I actually came up with a rule: Eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself. One reason we struggle with obesity today is that special-occasion foods like French fries, cakes and cookies have become so easy to obtain.

Do you think organic farming can be done on a large scale, bringing cost down closer to that of nonorganic foods?

Michael Lawrence, NASHVILLE

I think organic food will come down in price. But we need to pay people a living wage so they can afford to buy real food. In the 1970s, the rise of fast food paralleled the collapse of family wages. In a way, cheap food has subsidized that collapse. We have to rebuild those two.

Can small changes in American shopping and eating patterns make a difference collectively?

Judith Corr

GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

Without question. Look, you get to vote with your fork three times a day. That's a lot more votes you have than in any other realm of life. Getting that vote right even once a day makes a difference.

How can consumers ensure a strong food system for future generations?

Brad Christian

MEMPHIS, TENN.

We need to vote with our forks as consumers. We also need to make our agricultural policies support the kind of food system we want--support farmers who are growing organic food or local food, not just big corn and soy farmers.

Are genetically modified crops harming our health?

Barbara Comnes, CHICAGO

The honest answer is, We don't know. There is a tremendous experiment being performed right now on humans and the environment with these crops, which are much less regulated than people realize. You should be able to decide if you want to eat genetically modified food. And we're not allowed to right now.

What can be done to end subsidies for agribusiness?

Kim Graves, CATSKILL, N.Y.

I don't agree that we need to eliminate subsidies. Government has been supporting farmers in one way or another since the Depression. There's been intervention in agriculture going back to the Old Testament. I think we should support our farmers, but we should get something more for it than cheap calories.

If you could change only one thing about our agricultural system, what would it be?

Scott Exo, PORTLAND, ORE.

I would bring animals back onto farms. We have seen a wholesale migration of animals to feedlots over the past 20 or 30 years. On a farm, their waste feeds the crops and the crops feed the animals--it's an elegant solution. When we took animals off the farms, we divided that solution into two big problems.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Tartelette: Lemon Goat Cheese Cheesecakes With Blood Orange Sauce- Swoon!

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Gluten-Free Sausage Recall | NFCA

Judge asked to halt planting of genetically modified sugarbeet seeds in Oregon

I don't think the public is taking this issue very seriously outside of a small group of very concerned people.

With the recent release of Monsanto's own data of genetically modified corn and subsequent analysis, it appears that such genetic modification of inserting pesticides into biological material could be detrimental to the organs of living animals that consume this food.

At the very least, GMO labels should be required. But the natural process of how these genetically modified plants can - and will - spread their genes, will result in the unintended spread of potentially dangerous genetic modifications, threatening our agricultural supply.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Love these! and that Happy Owl Glassworks makes so many more animals too.

Organic Seeds- For those who are taking the soil into our own hands

The Non-GMO Project- Here is a link to the printable list of safe non-GMO foods

Products listed here are enrolled in the Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program and are considered Official Participants. Enrolled products are in the process of being verified, but have not yet been deemed fully compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard (this often takes a few months). There are Verified products listed here as well, and those items are distinguished in bold with a butterfly logo.

We encourage you to support the companies and products below in recognition of their laudable commitment to ensuring the sustained availability of non-GMO options, and their belief that consumers deserve an informed choice.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Take Action: Tell USDA That You Care About GE Contamination of Organic Food!

Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

All three varieties of GM corn, Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603, were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.

The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto’s 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose.

Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.

Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating: “The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data.”1

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

How to Grow Your Foodshed | The Nourished Kitchen

North Carolina Protects Celiac Community from Poisoned Bread | NFCA

North Carolina Protects Celiac Community from Poisoned Bread

--> -->

Celiac in the News

1/22/2010

 

The North Carolina Attorney General’s office announced today that it is supporting a lawsuit filed against restraining order against the Paul Selig, owner of Great Specialty Products, which manufactures gluten-free breads.

Gluten-Free Raleigh writes:

“The state of North Carolina is enforcing Gluten Free product claims/labeling (via fraud) when the FDA won't. It's great to know that our state is actively protecting its citizenry, especially Celiacs who are often left fighting for themselves at every turn.”

A lawsuit was filed against Selig on Wednesday afternoon, following an N.C Department of Agriculture investigation of Great Specialty Products. Many local customers reported having been contaminated after eating Great Specialty Products bread.

The Attorney General’s office is asking the judge hearing the Seelig lawsuit to close the company. Yesterday’s hearing will enforce a temporary restraining order against the company preventing them from selling gluten-free labeled products for at least 10 days. 

Two members of the gluten-free community, Rebecca Fernandez, of Raleigh, and Fred Lybrand, of Chapel Hill, home tested samples of seven Great Specialty Products breads and found them positive for the gluten protein, which prompted the N.C Department of Agriculture investigation. State agriculture officials sent samples from the same breads tested by Fernandez and Lybrand to a University of Nebraska lab, which determined that the breads tested did in fact contain gluten.

Whether the breads were made with wheat or exposed to the gluten protein through cross contamination could not be identified.

But according to NBC17:

Dan Ragan with the Department of Agriculture said after getting the bread tested, the levels of gluten were much too high to be simple contamination.

"Those results came back with 5,000 parts per million of gluten," Ragan said.

Complete coverage of the lawsuit can be found on the News & Observer website.

NFCA's GREAT Business Association seeks to promote quality, tested, SAFE gluten-free products. To learn more about our organization's efforts to improve the gluten-free market and protect the celiac community, click here.

 

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

In Reversal, U.S. Expresses Concern Over Additive to Plastics

In a shift of position, the Food and Drug Administration is expressing concerns about possible health risks from bisphenol-A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging that it declared safe in 2008.

Skip to next paragraph

 

David McNew/Getty Images

Bisphenol-a (BPA), found in Nalgene brand water bottles, is one of the most widely used synthetic chemicals in industry.

The agency said Friday that it had “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children,” and would join other federal health agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans.

The action is another example of the drug agency under the Obama administration becoming far more aggressive in taking hard looks at what it sees as threats to public health. In recent months, the agency has stepped up its oversight of food safety and has promised to tighten approval standards for medical devices.

Concerns about BPA are based on studies that have found harmful effects in animals, and on the recognition that the chemical seeps into food and baby formula, and that nearly everyone is exposed to it, starting in the womb.

But health officials said there was no proof that BPA was dangerous to humans.

“If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the principal deputy commissioner of the drug agency, at a news briefing.

Nonetheless, health officials suggested a number of things people could do to limit their exposure to BPA, like throwing away scratched or worn bottles or cups made with BPA (it can leak from the scratches), not putting very hot liquids into cups or bottles with BPA and checking the labels on containers to make sure they are microwave safe. The drug agency also recommended that mothers breastfeed their infants for at least 12 months; liquid formula contains traces of BPA.

BPA has been used since the 1960s to make hard plastic bottles, sippy cups for toddlers and the linings of food and beverage cans, including the cans used to hold infant formula and soda. Until recently, it was used in baby bottles, but major manufacturers are now making bottles without it. Plastic items containing BPA are generally marked with a 7 on the bottom for recycling purposes.

The chemical can leach into food, and a study of more than 2,000 people found that more than 90 percent of them had BPA in their urine. Traces have also been found in breast milk, the blood of pregnant women and umbilical cord blood.

Reports of potential health effects have made BPA notorious, especially among parents, and led to widespread shunning of products thought to contain the chemical. Canada, Chicago and Suffolk County, N.Y., have banned BPA from children’s products.

The government will spend $30 million on BPA research in humans and animals, to take place over 18 to 24 months, health officials said at a news briefing on Friday.

Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the research would involve potential effects on behavior, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, cancer, asthma, heart disease and effects that could be carried from one generation to the next.

Activists on both sides of the passionately debated issue said they were disappointed in the government’s action. The American Chemical Council, which represents companies that make and use BPA, issued a statement saying BPA was safe, praising the health agencies as confirming that there was no proof of harm to people by it, but also saying, “We are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well founded.”

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, said the F.D.A. had not gone far enough, because its recommendations put the responsibility on families and not on companies making products containing BPA. In addition, Ms. Zuckerman said, the focus on safety should not be limited to children, because studies have linked the chemicals to heart and liver disease and other problems in adults.

Government evaluations of BPA have had a contentious history. The drug agency wrote a draft report calling it safe in 2008. But shortly after that, the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, said BPA was cause for “some concern,” citing the same issues that the drug agency is now agreeing to: potential effects on the brain, behavior and prostate in fetuses, infants and children.

Then the drug agency asked an independent panel of scientific advisers to review its draft report, and the panel gave it a scathing review. It accused the F.D.A. of ignoring important evidence and giving consumers a false sense of security about the chemical. The drug agency promised to reconsider BPA, and the announcement on Friday fulfilled that pledge.

“We are for the first time saying we believe there is some concern about the substance’s safety, and we’ve closed the gap between N.I.H. and F.D.A.,” Dr. Sharfstein of the F.D.A. said in an interview.

Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency had become more receptive to new techniques of studying the safety of chemicals. Old methods involved giving test animals large doses and looking for clear evidence of effects like illness, tumors or organ damage. Newer methods involve studying small doses — similar to human exposures — and looking for more subtle effects, like changes in behavior or biochemistry. Results can be harder to interpret and may demand more study.

Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency was also re-evaluating the way it regulates BPA. The substance is now classified as a food additive, a category that requires a cumbersome and time-consuming process to make regulatory changes. Dr. Sharfstein said he hoped its status could be changed to “food contact substance,” which would give the F.D.A. more regulatory power and let it act more quickly if it needed to do so.

Gardiner Harris contributed reporting from Washington.

Recommend Next Article in Health (1 of 34) » A version of this article appeared in print on January 16, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.

 

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Gluten Sensitivity v. Celiac Disease- What do we know? | NFCA

A pesticide free way of protecting our growing plants (( tags: Meteor’s Netting, pesticide free farming, antivirus farming))

Drinks you can and can't enjoy if you’re gluten free |  

If you're new here, and like what you read, please subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Recently diagnosed, and wondering what you can or can’t drink?

You know you can’t eat gluten … but what is in your mug? There are many drinks that you can enjoy, whether hot, cold, alcoholic or not.

black coffee

  • water – whether tap, mineral or flavoured should be fine. There’s no gluten in pure water, and we should all be drinking more of this
  • pure fruit juice – no gluten in this – just flavour and vitamins (and, sadly, calories from the sugars). Be careful about smoothies – these are usually just fruit juice and yoghurt, but do sometimes have other ingredients, so just check
  • milk is gluten free. If you’re lactose intolerant, or avoiding dairy for other reasons, try soya milk or rice milk. You may be able to handle goat’s milk
  • probiotic drinks are a new trend. Check them, but they should be fine if you can handle dairy products
  • plain tea is gluten free, as should be any milk or sugar that you add, but be wary of drinks from vending machines, as there may be cross-contact (see Make Mine Gluten Free for a discussion of the difference between cross-contact and cross-contamination)
  • herbal or fruit teas and infusions should all be gluten free
  • plain coffee is gluten free (and so are milk and and sugar) but be careful of flavourings and other additions (e.g. some chocolate toppings to go on cappuccinos, lattes, etc). Again, be careful about using vending machines
  • coffee substitutes, such as chicory blends or decaffeinated drinks may contain gluten. I had an email from the SoyCoffee; people to promote their gluten free coffee substitute – but I haven’t tried it.
  • pure instant chicory is gluten free
  • chocolate drinks: pure cocoa powder is gluten free, but check drinking chocolate because this can contain wheat
  • savoury drinks, such as Bovril and Marmite should be checked (particularly if you are not in the UK, as I understand that non-UK Marmite may not be gluten free)
  • most fizzy drinks are gluten free, but be alert to ‘cloud’ – this can be wheat-based
  • most fruit squashes are gluten free, but don’t drink the ‘fruit and barley’ squashes. It’s obvious, but you’d be surprised how easy it is to miss this!
  • avoid malted drinks (because of the malt). The only example I can think of is Ovaltine, but no doubt there are others out there. Malt extract and malt flavouring are made from barley, and widely used in breakfast cereals, pre-prepared meals, sweets and snacks. Small amounts of malt extract can be tolerated by many coeliacs, but not everyone, so check, and be careful. Even if you can handle a bowl of Rice Krispies, you may tip yourself over the ’safe’ limit if you eat malt repeatedly throughout the day
  • cider, sherry, port and liqueurs are gluten free – and so, presumably is perry. Some fortified wines and sherry may contain caramel colour, which may be derived from wheat starch, but doesn’t contain detectable gluten, and is considered to be gluten free
  • wine should be gluten free, whether still, fizzy, sweet or dry, but we have had reports that some Australian wines are treated with hydrolysed wheat gluten as part of the fining process. Again, the level of gluten is not detectable in the final product, and it is considered to be gluten free
  • spirits are gluten free as long as no gluten product is added after distillation. Yes, including malt whiskies, because of the distillation process. But be careful of cocktails, which may have a gluten-containing product in them …
  • most beer, lager, stout and ale contain gluten, so avoid these. There are a growing range of gluten free beers of all varieties available.

I hope that helps. I’m just going to put the kettle on …

ShareThis

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Genetic Testing for Celiac Disease - Consults Blog

Dr. Sheila Crowe, a professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology in the department of medicine at the University of Virginia, recently joined the Consults blog to answer reader questions about celiac disease, an often overlooked digestive disorder that causes damage to the small intestine when gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley and rye, is eaten. In previous posts, Dr. Crowe exploredthe varied symptoms of celiac disease and confirming a diagnosis of celiac disease. Here, Dr. Crowe responds to readers asking about the disease running in families, genetic tests that may help confirm a diagnosis, food allergies and thins that set off the ailment.

Which Groups Are at Highest Risk for Celiac Disease?

Q.

Is it true that Irish ancestry gives you a higher predisposition to the gene?
Kate

Sheila Crowe, M.D. Sheila Crowe, M.D.
A.

Dr. Crowe responds: When I went to medical school in Canada three decades ago, we did learn about celiac disease, including that celiac disease was most common in the Irish population, with about 1 in 300 people affected. At that time, celiac disease was thought to occur in 1 in 2,000 Canadians, similar to the rates in Australia and New Zealand. That figure was less than in most northern European countries but much greater than in the United States, where the frequency was estimated to be 1 in 5,000. When I first moved to the United States, in 1992, I was surprised that few of my colleagues knew much about celiac disease.

Since that time, things have really changed in terms of what is known about who gets celiac disease and how common it is. We now know that celiac disease occurs in many as 1 in 100 people in nearly every country in Europe, including the Mediterranean region, as well as in North Africa and Asia from the Middle East to as far east as India and in countries settled by migrants from countries where celiac disease occurs.

What many of our readers may not know is that only 10 percent to 15 percent of those with celiac disease have actually been diagnosed in the United States. The rate is probably equally low in many other countries. In some countries like Finland, national health policies have increased the detection rate of celiac disease to about 50 percent.

So, Kate, what you have heard about the Irish having a higher disposition to celiac disease is true, but it turns out that many people in the countries or regions I mention above also have the genes that predispose to celiac disease. These genes are in the family of genes for proteins referred to as human leukocyte antigens, or H.L.A. A subset of these genes are involved in autoimmune diseases, and the genes that predispose to celiac disease are in that group.

Some of these H.L.A. genes can be tested for using a sample of blood or cells taken from your mouth by swabbing the inside of your cheek. They are known as H.L.A. DQ2 and H.L.A. DQ8; 95 percent of people with celiac disease have genes that include H.L.A. DQ2, and 5 percent have genes with H.L.A. DQ8.

Tests that detect H.L.A. DQ2 and DQ8 genes can suggest a diagnosis of celiac disease, but they cannot confirm a diagnosis, since 35 percent to 40 percent of the overall American population carries these genes. Only a small subset – 2 percent to 3 percent — of all people with these genes will ever get celiac disease.

What this test can tell you is whether you are at risk of having celiac disease, since without these genes it is virtually impossible to get celiac disease. This is one celiac disease test that only needs to be checked once in a lifetime, since our genetic makeup does not change. (In contrast, antibody blood tests for celiac disease can be negative when first checked but become positive later in life when celiac disease starts to develop; see my earlier post, “Confirming a Diagnosis of Celiac Disease.”

In addition, only about 40 percent of the risk of celiac disease can be attributed to these H.L.A. genes. We believe that other genes, as well as environmental factors, lead to celiac disease. So far, scientists have identified over a dozen possible non-H.L.A. genes that may be associated with celiac disease, but whether these genes actually play a role remains to be seen.

Thanks, Kate, for your question.

Easy Genetic Tests for Celiac Disease?

Q.

Is there an easy genetic test for celiac disease? My doctors have said that I may have it and they just can’t find it. My blood test is negative, and my colonoscopy and endoscopy were negative. However, as the doctor said, they couldn’t get through where my appendix is to see the area there. I have rashes and classic symptoms, but the elimination diet and challenges from the Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney have been inconclusive, not to mention boring. A genetic test would be so easy, and here they are free on the universal health care system.
Serena

A.

Dr. Crowe responds: The H.L.A. DQ2/DQ8 genetic test, which I discussed above, would help out in your case, Serena, since it would let you know if you have the genetic predisposition to celiac disease. If you don’t have these genes, then you won’t have to worry about having celiac disease and other medical conditions can be considered as a cause of your problems. It appears you live in Australia — I expect this genetic test is available there.

Celiac Disease vs. Food Allergies

Q.

I was diagnosed with celiac about 10 years ago using IgE. I also had an intestinal biopsy done which was inconclusive. After being gluten-free for seven years, I went off my diet and have been doing just fine for three years. My primary care physician says that so long as I don’t feel bad I can eat gluten with abandon. My IgE levels are sky high again, but I’m conflicted as I’m feeling really just fine. I don’t live in a black and white world, but I am nervous that I’m setting myself up for permanent damage down the road. Please help!
Andrea

A.

Dr. Crowe responds: Andrea, your query intrigues me, given my interest in celiac disease and also food allergies.

I am not sure if you really mean IgE, since IgE antibodies are not involved in celiac disease. As I discussed earlier this week in “Confirming a Diagnosis of Celiac Disease,” IgA and IgG are the two types of antibodies that are used in checking for possible celiac disease. IgE antibodies to various foods are typically measured in the blood or by skin prick testing when food or other allergies are suspected.

If you had an allergy to wheat and not celiac disease, then your doctor may be correct in letting you eat wheat again. When it comes to food allergies that involve IgE antibodies, unless one has a clinical reaction to that antigen — be it wheat, cow’s milk proteins like casein or beta-lactoglobulin, or any other food protein — then it isn’t always necessary to avoid that food, even if the skin prick test or blood test is abnormal. However, when it comes to celiac disease that has been biopsy proven, even eating a small amount of gluten can lead to problems without your necessarily feeling unwell. It can take months to years for some patients with celiac disease who start eating gluten after being gluten-free for a long time to get sick again.

I would recommend verifying which blood test you have had checked. Was it an antibody to the protein found in wheat, or to TTG or gliadin, the proteins involve din celiac disease? In addition, what type of antibody was it: IgA, IgG or IgE?

If it turns out you have elevated celiac disease antibodies (IgA or IgG) to TTG or gliadin, you may want to check into why your intestinal biopsy was inconclusive by getting an expert pathologist to look at a set of your biopsy slides. If, after all this, there is still some doubt about a diagnosis of celiac disease, then the H.L.A. DQ testing which I discussed earlier in my replies to Kate and Serena would be helpful. If you test negative for H.L.A. DQ2 or DQ8, then you don’t need to worry about having celiac disease or damaging your intestine if you keep eating wheat.

Do a Rash of Symptoms Point to Celiac Disease?

Q.

I have had many health problems for the last 35 years, since I was in my early 20s. I’ve gone to many doctors, having multitudes of tests during that time. Not one doctor has even suspected celiac.

After more than 20 years, I did start to get some diagnoses: fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, I.B.S., iritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiac artery disease (two heart attacks in 2004, resulting in three stents in my heart), osteoarthritis, depression, sleep apnea, obesity ….

My symptoms are varied: neurological (several doctors have thought I had M.S., but no lesions – memory loss, fuzzy thinking, numbness, muscle tics, drop foot, droopy eye). Dry mouth, eyes and skin; very high inflammation levels, extreme fatigue, diarrhea/constipation, stomach cramps, bloating, vomiting, swollen and painful joints, changes in my nails, ringing in my ears, muscle pain, skin rashes and probably more that have slipped my mind!

My question is this: When I suspected that gluten was a problem for me and went on a G.F. diet, many of these symptoms went away. I have energy, think clearer, am losing weight, and my fingers and ankles don’t hurt or swell anything like they used to. Do my systemic symptoms and “G.F. cure” tend to lean toward celiac disease? What is the benefit of knowing for sure? I will not go back on a gluten control. This last bout was too much for me!

Thanks for any help you can give me.
Becky Goodnight

A.

Dr. Crowe responds: I completely understand your perspective, Becky, and this is another situation in which the genetic test can be of some help. Knowing whether you have celiac disease can also help determine whether your family might also be at risk.

If you do not have the H.L.A. DQ2 or DQ8 genes, then it is very unlikely that you have celiac disease. Your family members are also not at increased risk.

If you don’t have celiac disease susceptibility genes, your response to the gluten free diet may be due to another condition, such as gluten sensitivity or perhaps one of a few other conditions that sometimes improve on a gluten-free diet. As many of our readers are aware, the gluten free diet often eliminates other substances in addition to gluten that can cause health problems, since fewer processed foods and more natural foods are consumed.

If you do have H.L.A. DQ2 or DQ8 genes, then you could have celiac disease, but as noted above, this test cannot confirm a diagnosis. Given your story, Becky, I would not recommend going back on gluten (a gluten challenge) to try to confirm the diagnosis. My only suggestion would be to make sure that you have been tested for possible causes of your medical problems other than celiac disease.

Gluten-Free Children?

Q.

Had my son tested yesterday (celiac blood panel) and waiting to see if he has celiac. He is showing some symptoms, so I removed gluten from his diet. It is genetic, isn’t it?
Allison

A.

Dr. Crowe responds: I have taken the liberty of extracting this one question from your longer posting, Allison, where you described your own celiac disease. Yes, celiac disease does have a genetic basis; your son has a 50 percent chance of inheriting your H.L.A. genes. However, as I’d discussed in an earlier posting (see “Diagnosing Celiac Disease on a Gluten-Free Diet”), it is not recommended that anyone go on a gluten-free diet until the diagnosis of celiac disease is made.

I am interested to know what your son was tested for, and maybe you will have the results by now. Ideally, relatives of a patient with celiac disease who themselves have symptoms suggesting celiac disease should get both the genetic test and an antibody test, typically a TTG IgA level and also a AG IgA level if the relative is a young child.

What are the possible scenarios? If your son does not have the H.L.A. DQ genes that place him at risk, then you don’t have to worry about him getting celiac disease. He did not inherit your celiac disease H.L.A. genes.

If your son has the H.L.A. DQ2 or DQ8 susceptibility genes but his antibody levels are negative, with a normal total IgA level, then he will need to have antibodies, especially a TTG IgA level, checked periodically, since he is at risk of developing celiac disease later in life. If he has an elevated celiac disease antibody test now, then I expect his doctor will recommend confirming celiac disease with intestinal biopsies.

Please let me know how this story turns out, and whatever happens, I wish you and your son the best.

A 7-Year-Old With Stomach Pains

Q.

My 7-year-old always has a stomachache, sometimes severe, after he eats. He also has a long history of constipation. I thought that he was lactose intolerant, but he seems to have tested negative for that. He also was tested for celiac over a year ago, but that came back negative too. My questions are the following:

Should I have him retested for celiac disease, and if so, which tests should I absolutely make sure his doctor requests?

Also, if someone tests negative for celiac, could the person actually have the disease but just not be testing for it?

I also forgot to mention in my post above that my 7-year-old was found to be extremely iron deficient, yet he has a diet rich in iron, both meat and plant based. Could this be a sign of celiac if coupled with his severe stomach pains?
abs

A.

Dr. Crowe responds: I would definitely recommend that your son be retested for celiac disease, and make sure that he gets a TTG IgA test along with the total IgA level if this latter test was not checked previously.

As I discussed in my reply to Karen in an earlier posting, “Confirming a Diagnosis of Celiac Disease,” there are situations in which it is advisable to proceed with an endoscopy, even if the antibody tests are negative. This is a bigger decision to make when children are involved, but given your son’s problems (abdominal pain, iron deficiency and altered bowel habits – yes, constipation can occur in celiac disease), I would be tempted to recommend this procedure even if his antibody tests come back negative.

If he has IgA deficiency and the antibody tests are negative, this would be further reason to consider an endoscopy to take intestinal biopsies. If there is any hesitancy on anyone’s part, checking the genetic test could be the deal breaker, since if your son has celiac disease susceptibility genes, then I would go for an endoscopy. Of course, other conditions that could be a cause of his problems, like Crohn’s disease, should be checked for if this has not already been done. I hope a cause and treatment for your son’s problems are found soon.

When Celiac Disease Runs in the Family

Q.

Wow, I just read all the posts so far. It’s amazing how much confusion there is about this subject. My mother, in her 70s, was suffering from what seemed to be a wasting disease after a lifetime of good health and fitness. After three years of the same tests and no explanation (going back to the same doctor!), she went to a hospital gastro clinic, where she was diagnosed with celiac sprue in 1996. By the way, I don’t think there’s a difference between the Canadian and American medical systems when it comes to this.

Then we learned that my maternal uncle had suffered from unrecognized celiac disease in early childhood, with many classic symptoms occurring all his life because he never altered his diet. Even after he died, his wife never mentioned it, as I guess no one realized it is genetically inherited. Two of my sisters tested positive for gluten antibodies, but I have not. I have always assumed that celiac sprue is what you get if you are gluten intolerant and all the villi in your small intestine get wiped out.

Rather than paying every year for the antibody testing, I opted for the genetic test two years ago and found I possess both genetic markers of gluten intolerance. Having seen what celiac disease did to my mother, who never fully recovered at her advanced age, I have opted to be on a gluten-free diet for the rest of my life “just in case.” It’s fine by me most of the time, unless I’m traveling or eating out. Since I’ve never had symptoms, I will cheat occasionally rather than go hungry or risk offending a well-meaning host.

I had to be persistent with my (older) doctor, an internist, to take a serious interest in this issue. To his credit he did, or I would have found someone else young enough to have come through med school in the past 10 years to order the tests.
Sandra

A.

Dr. Crowe responds: Thanks for your perspective, Sandra, and I agree that delayed diagnoses of celiac disease occur in both Canada and the United States. Delays of a decade and more have been reported from support groups in both countries. I am probably one of the “older” doctors you refer to but, to be fair, I did learn about celiac disease in medical school. I suspect that information met more receptive ears since I had married someone with celiac disease before entering medical school and his mother had co-founded the Canadian Celiac Association in 1972.

I have included your posting in this section on “Genetic Testing in Celiac Disease” since you used the result of this test to decide whether you would start on a gluten-free diet or not. While I do not always recommend that someone start a gluten-free diet based on the genetic test alone or even antibody testing without intestinal biopsies, as I discussed in the posting “Confirming a Diagnosis of Celiac Disease,” I think your reasoning and family experiences led you to make a rationale decision to eat “gluten-free.”

I do discourage families from making such a decision for their children based only on family history or a positive genetic test, since a gluten-free is difficult to adhere to, has some inherit nutritional deficiencies and can be more expensive. Not everyone with the genes or a family history will develop celiac disease – the chance of this happening if you have the “right” H.L.A. genes is 20 percent to 30 percent.

A Daughter With Symptoms of Celiac Disease

Q.

About 15 years ago I suspected that my husband had a sprue and fought with his (Navy Medical) Doctor to have an upper G.I. done. The results came back positive. He was 43, severely underweight, yellowed eyes, severe and chronic diarrhea, fatigued and had been eating over 4,000 calories a day to keep his energy up.

Trials and tribulations later, we buy most of his gluten free foods at Trader Joe’s here in San Diego. We have learned to reread labels and to ask specific questions regarding wheat/gluten in products and restaurants.

After our daughter turned 5, we had her tested for celiac disease. She was already lactose intolerant by testing and symptoms. The results were negative.

Today, at 22, she still is bothered by a chronic diarrhea and stomach cramps. The similar complaints as if she ate milk products, but as she states not all milk products bother her.

If her insurance permits, should we have her retested for celiac disease? At her first test she only was reactive to one of the two antibodies. Can one grow more antibodies?

Given the probability of the disease, shall she just go gluten free? I’ve read there are a number of levels of gluten sensitivity.

How much is known about the genetics of this disease? Can she pass this to her kids? And what are the odds?

Thanks.
Laurie

A.

Dr. Crowe responds: Laurie, I am glad to hear that in spite of a rocky start, your husband was diagnosed and treated for celiac disease. I can fully understand why you don’t want your daughter to run into the same type of problem. I am not sure what testing she had when she was 5, but I would bet that it was not a genetic test, since these have only been available for more routine use in the past five years or so.

Given the family history and her symptoms, I would recommend that she get both the genetic test and the TTG IgA test with a total IgA. I certainly hope her insurance company will cover these costs, since making a diagnosis of celiac disease and getting her started on a gluten-free diet now if she does have celiac disease could save them money in the long run, as your husband’s medical history makes clear. As I have mentioned in other replies in today’s posting on genetic testing yes, the antibodies can become positive over time in both children and adults.

As I discussed at the start of this posting a fair amount is known about the HLA DQ2 and DQ8 genes and yes, if your daughter has these susceptibility genes, she could pass them on to her children.

Late-in-Life Onset of Celiac Disease

Q.

My father was diagnosed with celiac disease about 12 years ago, as well as his sister and her son. My brother and I had the blood test done, and neither of us had the abnormal reading. I am wondering whether celiac could still present itself later in life? I’ve heard that hormonal changes such as pregnancy can trigger the onset of the disease, and I’m curious if that’s true.
Mary S.

A.

Dr. Crowe responds: Mary, I am guessing that the blood test you and your brother had was the TTG IgA test. As we discussed in the posting “Confirming a Diagnosis of Celiac Disease,” this test is not always accurate. In addition, it can turn positive later in life if you are genetically predisposed to celiac disease. I would therefore suggest that you get the HLA DQ2/DQ8 testing performed. If you have the genetic predisposition, then re-checking celiac disease antibodies is worthwhile.

We don’t really know why celiac disease shows up later in life in some folks. Pregnancy, stress, infection, gastric surgery and a few other things have been suggested as possible triggering factors. The average diagnosis of celiac disease is now made in 40 or 50 year olds, whereas it used to be a disease of children. Patients are being diagnosed as late as the eighth decade of life and later. More research needs to be done to determine why celiac disease is presenting later in life and why it is a more common condition than in the past.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Agave Nectar: Good or Bad? | Food Renegade- 2nd try, yesterday the link didn't work right

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health [Abstract]

Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726 ©Ivyspring International Publisher

Research Paper

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

Joël Spiroux de Vendômois1, François Roullier1, Dominique Cellier1,2, Gilles-Eric Séralini1,3

1. CRIIGEN, 40 rue Monceau, 75008 Paris, France
2. University of Rouen LITIS EA 4108, 76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
3. University of Caen, Institute of Biology, Risk Pole CNRS, EA 2608, 14032 Caen, France

Abstract

We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.

Keywords: GMO, toxicity, GM corn, rat, NK 603, MON 810, MON 863

How to cite this article:
de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Agave Nectar: Good or Bad? | from Food Renegade - I vote BAD!

ACS :: Breastfeeding Can Reduce A Woman's Risk Of Breast Cancer

Family together with an infant.

Having more babies and breastfeeding longer can reduce a woman's risk of breast cancer, according to a study reported in the July 20 issue of The Lancet (Vol. 360: 187-195).

In the most detailed study on the role of breastfeeding in breast cancer risk, the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer looked at 47 previous reports of studies conducted in 30 countries. These reports contained information looking at 50,000 women with breast cancer and almost 97,000 women who did not develop breast cancer.

"Although childbearing is known to protect against breast cancer, what contribution breastfeeding has on this protective effect, if any, has been difficult to determine," the authors said.

Developed Countries Differed From Developing Countries

The report said the average number of births and the length of time women breastfed their children varied across countries. The variation was linked to the small family size and short lifetime duration of breastfeeding of women in developed countries, such as the US, the authors said.

In the US the number of pregnant women who have ever breastfed was 50%, which was the lowest of the countries studied, the authors reported. In contrast, more than 90% of the women in Japan who have given birth have breastfed at some time.

Even more striking was the duration of breastfeeding. Looking just at women who did not have breast cancer, the average duration of breastfeeding for women in developed countries was three months per child.

But, in developing countries such as those in Africa and Asia, the average duration of breastfeeding was 30 months.

There were several important findings, based on the authors' detailed analysis of the information.

For women who never breastfed their children, the report said that each birth reduced a woman' s individual risk of developing breast cancer by 7%.

For women who breastfed their children compared to women who never breastfed, a woman' s risk of breast cancer decreased by a bit more than 4% for each year during her lifetime that she breastfed her children.

Breastfeeding Alone Gave Reduced Risk

The study also figured out how breastfeeding and pregnancy would affect the risk of breast cancer in developed countries, if women had the same number of births and length of breastfeeding that was found in developing countries.

The results were powerful: the risk of breast cancer in developed countries would be cut by more than half if women had the same patterns of births and breastfeeding as women in developing countries.

Almost two-thirds of the reduced risk was due to breastfeeding alone. The rest would be due to the increased numbers of births.

"These relations are significant and are seen consistently for women from developed and developing countries, of different ages and ethnic origins, and with various childrearing patterns and other personal characteristics," said the authors. "The short duration of breastfeeding typical of women in developed countries makes a major contribution to the high incidence of breast cancer in these countries."

However, the study also cautions, "To expect that substantial reductions in breast-cancer incidence could be brought about today by women returning to the pattern of childbearing and breastfeeding that typified most societies until a century or so ago is unrealistic.

"In the meantime, important reductions in breast cancer incidence could be achieved if women considered breastfeeding each child for longer than they do now," the authors said.

The study concluded that if women had an average of two and one-half children and breastfed each child an extra six months, 5% of breast cancers would be prevented each year. If they breastfed their child for an additional 12 months, 11% of breast cancers would be prevented each year.

Study May Encourage US Women To Breastfeed Longer

Jeanne Calle, PhD, director of analytic epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, said the current study helps to refine our knowledge of the reduced risks that come from increased births and longer times for breastfeeding.

"Whether women were heavy or thin, or whether they lived in developed or undeveloped countries, it made no difference," said Calle. "The relationships are true."

Calle noted that there is a big difference between the average two and one-half births and three months of breastfeeding for each birth typical of the developed countries compared to the average six and one-half births and 24 months of breastfeeding for each child found in developing countries.

"It' s not realistic to expect women in the United States to have this number of children or breastfeed this long," Calle said. "But the study may encourage more women to breastfeed a bit longer."

"We have so much phobia and concern about the increased rate of breast cancer —what could it be due to? In a simple and eloquent way, this study says that a great deal of the increased risk is due to changes in reproductive patterns," Calle said. "Things have changed over the past 100 years.

"The message here is not to have seven children and breastfeed them for a total of 13 years," Calle said. "The message is that simple and unglamorous factors affect the risk of breast cancer. Breastfeeding does decrease your risk of breast cancer, and if you want to increase the duration of breastfeeding a bit, that' s great."

Expert Suggests Other Ways to Reduce Risk

William C. Wood, MD, chairman of the department of surgery at Emory University School of Medicine, and an expert in breast cancer, noted this study shows that if a woman had two children and breastfed for one year for each child, her personal lifetime risk of breast cancer would decrease from 10% to 9%.

For women with a high risk of breast cancer, Wood noted that drugs like tamoxifen could reduce the risk of breast cancer by 50%.

"It would seem in that situation to make more sense to take tamoxifen if you are a woman at high risk of breast cancer," said Wood. "This reduction does not appear enough to decide to breastfeed."

Wood pointed out that having children at a younger age is the ideal way to reduce the risk of breast cancer.

"This study should influence how we approach birth control pills and other hormonal therapies," he said. "I would advocate breastfeeding based on motivation and lifestyle, not on decreasing the risk of breast cancer."

Wood said, "This study is important because it is well done. But the benefit of breastfeeding, although real, is small."

ACS News Center stories are provided as a source of cancer-related news and are not intended to be used as press releases.

Here is something we can do to truly change our probability of getting breast cancer.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Gluten and Medications

Welcome to Gluten Free Drugs

A source of information for gluten free drugs

 

Over the past few months a number of drug companies have been telling people that some of the drugs that they manufacture contain gluten.  When I investigated their claims it appears that the reason they are blatantly claiming that their drugs are contaminated is because they have used a sugar alcohol as an excipient. 

 

Sugar alcohols are not truly sugars or alcohols rather they are carbohydrates that provide a source of calories.  The sugar alcohols are naturally found in a number of fruits and vegetables and may be extracted from many sources including any starch, including wheat.  During the manufacturing process they are completely refined leaving behind no gluten proteins similar to making table sugar.  The mostly widely used sugar alcohols used in prescription drug manufacturing are mannitol and xylitol.   Both of the products are used either as sweeteners in liquid drug products or as bulking agents in the solid dosage forms.

 

The sugar alcohols are used in many diabetic products as well as in many health foods such as nutrition bars.  Any person who consumes one of the sugar alcohols in significant quantities can experience gastrointestinal disturbances and diarrhea which may mimic symptoms celiac patients may suffer after being exposed to gluten.

 

National celiac organizations such as the Gluten Intolerance Group of North America. consider mannitol to be safe for use in celiac patients.  Additionally, if you go to the Celiac.Com website dated 11/29/07 you will find a list of items safe for the celiac patient to consume.  On that list you will also find both mannitol and xylitol as well as the following sugar alcohols sorbitol, malitol, lactilol and isomalt.

 

What does this means for the celiac patient?  If you happen to contact a drug company for information and you are told that a drug contains gluten you really need to push them to tell you which excipient in that drug product is considered the source of the gluten contamination.  If it turns out to be one sugar alcohols you may wish to re-evaluate their response.  While it is always up to the celiac patient to determine whether a product is safe for them, the prevailing literature continues to suggest that these sugar alcohols are safe for use.

 

If you have any additional questions please contact me through the glutenfreedrugs.com website.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEETINGS OF INTEREST

 

Celiac Disease Foundation Cel Dz Foun.gif (4633 bytes)

20th Anniversary Annual Education Conference & Food Faire

May 15, 2010

Los Angeles Downtown Marriott

Featuring:

Dr Peter H.R. Green, MD

Dr Sheila Crowe, MD

Shelley Case, BSc, RD

Anne Lee, MSEd, RD, LD

Mr Frank Baldassare "The Missing Ingredient"

 

________________________________________________________                                                                                           

For a list by therapeutic category

 

For a list by therpeutic catagory in printable PDF formatpdficon.gif (426 bytes)

 

For an alphabetical list

 

For an alphabetical list in printable PDF formatpdficon.gif (426 bytes)

 

Walgreens gluten free OTC drug listpdficon.gif (426 bytes)

 

Tylenol Products

 

Pfizer Drug Company Letter

 

Wheaton Gluten Free Support Group medication list pdficon.gif (426 bytes)

 

For a list that explains what some of the fillers are in drugs

 

Additional links of interest

Links to various local and national associations and support groups

 

Food links of interest

 

 

 getacro.gif (1953 bytes)

 

Updated 12/31/09

This website is authored and maintained by a clinical pharmacist as a public service, receiving no compensation whatsoever for providing this information.  Information for this website is obtained from a number of sources, including personal contact with the manufacturers and input from other individuals who contact manufacturers.  The information is continually updated as it is obtained.

This site is for informational purposes only.  Please note that a reasonable attempt is made to provide accurate information.  The webmaster is not responsible for any error contained within.  All persons should interpret the information with caution and should seek medical advice when necessary.

This website currently does not accept advertising.  If, in the future, advertising is accepted, it will be clearly distinguished from editorial content.

To contact the author and webmaster, please email me at: mailto:glutenfreedrugs@gmail.com

**My email has been experiencing problems but is now corrected.  I appologize for the inconvenience so please email me again if you have any questions (11/7/09)


Please note: I am not able to check the email daily, so please be patient. I will attempt to address all questions as quickly as possible.

 

 

A great resource for gluten-free folks.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

The Western Front - From creation to consumption

This is how ice cream should be but rarely is. Thanks Mallards!

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Toxic metal in kids' jewelry from China - Yahoo! News

Great, now they are using Cadmium instead of lead. Shall we add, DON'T buy cheap kids jewelry to our health suggestions?

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Starbucks Tries Gluten-Free Again « Gluten Free Joy

Starbucks Tries Gluten-Free Again

January 10, 2010 · 1 Comment

On Tuesday, January 12, 2010 my local Starbucks store will be one of many that will be offering a line of new snack options with 220 calories or less per serving.  Out of the list of 9 snacks, 8 of them appear to be gluten-free and allergen friendly!  After the Gluten-Free Orange Valencia Cake came and went, I am very happy with Starbucks for trying gluten-free again.  I am thrilled to be able to grab something for my GFK while I am fulfilling my weekly caffeine requirements.  All of these snacks are pre-packaged and labeled with ingredient lists so there is less chance for cross contamination issues but beware many contain nuts!  Starbucks has given us lots of gluten-free variety and they are all affordable. Check out the list below!  Let me know if you think Starbucks has finally gotten it right for the gluten-free and food allergic community.

Lucy’s Cookies – the one I am most excited to try!

Lucy’s cookies were created for a child who has to be careful about what he eats by a mom who’s a doctor and thinks everyone deserves something good to snack on. These delicious cookies are baked without wheat, gluten, dairy milk, butter, eggs, casein, peanuts or tree nuts. Available in Chocolate Chip, Sugar and Cinnamon, each variety has just 120-130 calories per serving.  Priced at $1.50 U.S. for Grab & Go Packs and $5.95 for a box you can share with friends and family.

Peeled Snacks

When one woman invented yummy Peeled Snacks, she gave us permission to enjoy snacking again.  Peeled Snacks use real fruit, bursting with flavor, to make a wholesome treat. With a full serving of fruit and just 130 calories or less per single-serving bag, they’ll give you a nourishing boost that won’t weigh you down.  Available in organic much-ado-about-Mango, Apple-2-the-core, and all-natural Cherry-go-round varieties.  Priced at $2.00 U.S.

Peter Rabbit Organics
Peter Rabbit Organics Fruit Pouches show kids, and parents too, that real fruit can be fun and delicious. Available in the Apple & Grape and Mango, Banana and Orange varieties, each pouch has 80-85 calories per pouch. Priced at $1.95 U.S.

Sahale Snacks®
After two friends hiking up Mt. Rainier found themselves craving a more satisfying snack, they decided to create these gourmet nuts.  Sahale Snacks uses whole ingredients in their natural form — such as cashews, almonds, pecans, macadamia nuts, and peanuts — and combines them with dried fruits, then adds fabulous ingredients like organic orange blossom honey, lemongrass, or pure ground Madagascar vanilla beans. Available in Pomegranate Cashew, Soledad Nut Blend, and Barbeque Almonds, a blend created exclusively for Starbucks, each 2 oz. serving has just 140-150 calories. Priced at $2.50 U.S.

Stretch Island Fruit Company
Created by a family determined to make life sweeter for all of us, Stretch Island Fruit Company Original Fruit Leathers are real fruit, plain and simple.  Every original Fruit Leather is equal to half a serving of fruit and has just 45 calories. Available at participating Starbucks stores in the U.S. and Canada in the Harvest Grape, Autumn Apple and Summer Strawberry varieties. Priced at $0.75 U.S.

Two Moms in the Raw
We hope you’re as inspired as we are by the journey one woman made when she (and some other moms) created these granolas. The granola mixes from Two Moms in the Raw are made to be 100% delicious. Available at participating Starbucks stores in the U.S. and Canada in two gluten-free varieties, Blueberry and Gojiberry, each of which is just 220 calories per serving. Priced at $3.95 U.S.

FoodShouldTasteGood
We love the philosophy behind these distinctive chips: food tastes best when it’s made with quality ingredients and thoughtful preparation. Available in Multigrain, a distinctively nutty flavored chip made with flax, sunflower seeds and sesame seeds, and Sweet Potato, lightly sweetened with cane sugar to enhance the natural nuttiness of a sweet potato in a chip.  Both varieties are 210 calories per 1.5 oz. serving size and provide 5g of fiber. Priced at $1.50 U.S.

KIND Bars
These bars with wholesome ingredients you can see and pronounce are the perfect grab-and-go snack, and just 170-190 calories.  The bars are free of gluten, dairy and wheat. Available at participating Starbucks stores in the U.S. and Canada in Mango Macadamia, Almond Cashew, Fruit & Nut Delight, and Cranberry & Almond.  Priced at $1.95 U.S.

Categories: GLuten-Free Product Recommendations · Gluten-Free Friendly Restaurants · food allergies
Tagged: , , , , ,

Looks like Starbucks is declaring a do-over on Gluten-free treats. I am not sure if Bellingham outlets will be carrying them, but they are all products I have tried with the exception of Lucy's cookies. They are tasty.
But I have to admit, a piece of fruit is good too.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.