Gluten-Free Cheerios (so disappointing)

[the_tortoise]

I was recently at the grocery store and noticed the honey-nut cheerios in a sale display said "gluten-free" on the box.

In a haze of excitement (I haven't eaten cheerios for approx 10 years and they were a staple of my chidhood) and store-sensory-environment-induced fuzzy-headed-ness, I didn't think to look for any info about who had certified them as gluten-free and just bought them. (This is very unusual for me; Normally I read labels carefully and look for information about certification for claims like "gluten-free"....I've even done research about the standards and testing/inspection protocols different certifying bodies and companies/brands use.)

I thought about the certification today.....and found out that there isn't any.

General Mills does their own testing and the testing method they use seems extremely unreliable for determining the level of gluten in each box -- lot mean testing. Here is a description of the testing process from Gluten Free Watchdog's Updated Position Statement On Gluten-Free Cheerios.:

"General Mills defines a “lot” as a 24-hour production cycle. To arrive at a lot mean, the following protocol is followed:

1. Twelve to eighteen boxes of cereal are pulled during a production cycle
2. The contents of each individual box are ground
3. A sub-sample of ground product is taken from each box
4. The sub-samples are composited—meaning they are combined
5. The combined sub-samples are subject to additional grinding
6. Twelve extractions are taken from this combined, ground sample
7. Extractions are tested using the Ridascreen Fast Gliadin (R7002) and cocktail extraction solution"

Here is a handy infographic from In Johnna's Kitchen to explain why this is problematic:

.

(The maximum level of gluten-contamination considered "safe" for people with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity is 20ppm.)

General Mills continues to state that "every serving" of cheerios contains less than 20ppm of gluten.... but most people don't buy 12 to 18 boxes of cheerios, then grind all the cheerios from all the boxes into a flour and mix the flour together before eating a serving. (And is 12 to 18 boxes a proper sample size when something like 180,000 boxes of cheerios can be produced at a single factory in a day? Maybe it is, I don't know....it just seems small to me -- 18 out of 180,000 boxes is 0.01%.....By the way, the number 180,000 comes from a 2015 recall of 1.8 million boxes of gluten-free cheerios produced at a single factory over a period of 2 weeks.....# of boxes / # working days = 1.8 million boxes / 10 days = 180,000 boxes / day)

 

[the_tortoise]

I also found out that General Mills are going to stop calling cheerios "gluten free" in Canada, as of late last month.

Apparently the Canadian Celiac Association advised people last year that people with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity shouldn't eat the gluten-free cheerios.

General Mills say on their webiste the reason they are removing the label is that they are waiting for the government to come up with officially required testing methods for gluten contamination but I am skeptical.....

I would not be surprised if the real reason they are doing this voluntarily is because they are risking a public relations nightmare over their supposed-to-be "gluten-free" cheerios making people sick and in a worst-cas- scenario triggering a Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) investigation that might find them in violation of the regulations. (As of 2016 there were at least 700 pages of documentation related to complaints filed with the CFIA about gluten-free cheerios -- source: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/active/scripts/agen/proactive/atip/result.asp?lang=e&m=2&y=2017/).

Surely it would be easy for such a huge and profitable company to find out what the medical and scientific community consider to be acceptable testing standards ....? The info is out there, lots of it publicly published, and I wouldn't be surprised if the information has been provided to them already, without them ever asking for it, by advocacy groups.

Implementing those testing standards is another story and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they would never choose to implement them because it would be too costly and cut too deeply into their profits; Which would be totally acceptable and okay in my opinion -- it's not like any company is required to make their products edible for a minority of the population that has a specific food intolerance/allergy ..... but if that is the case why can't they just be honest about it? Surely they could spin in it in some positive way like by focusing on their concern for consumer safety and satisfaction above all else, and/or telling people that if they want certified gluten-free cheerios it would have to be a more expensive specialty item separate from regular cheerios (like how dairy companies sell lines of organic and lactose-free milk, separate from the regular milk and at a higher cost to account for the higher cost of production as well as the smaller demand) and that people who would buy such a product must let the company know there is enough consumer demand to justify the cost of establishing such a new product line?

I am going to try eating a small amount of the cheerios I bought, as it's a lot of hassle to return them and they could be gluten-free (the odds are pretty good, I think, but it seems to be a gamble). If they make me sick I'll give the rest of the box to someone else. I'm super disappointed, though....I thought I could eat cheerios again without any worry at all.

 

[Chance]

Hey Tortoise,

I'm not at all sure if you have a "Sprouts" near by? Bet you can order online? But they have a Cereal called "Honey Oh's" its certified gluten free and very good. I think the Company Name of the maker is Mom's Best Foods... To me tastes just like good ole Honey Nut Cheerio's...

Sad that G Mills are not really being valid in the testing area... My guess is they just wanting to jump on the GF bandwagon to get some high profit returns with very little oversight.

My Gramps always said, that when we genetically mutated all the grain to meet the demands for the masses, that is where all this came from??? I wonder if he was on to something...

I also wonder if we could get a hold of some Heirloom Non GMO wheat if it would have the same effect on us? It would be really cool to find out? Just to know...

 

[Streetwise]

Hey Tortoise,

I'm not at all sure if you have a "Sprouts" near by? Bet you can order online? But they have a Cereal called "Honey Oh's" its certified gluten free and very good. I think the Company Name of the maker is Mom's Best Foods... To me tastes just like good ole Honey Nut Cheerio's...

Sad that G Mills are not really being valid in the testing area... My guess is they just wanting to jump on the GF bandwagon to get some high profit returns with very little oversight.

My Gramps always said, that when we genetically mutated all the grain to meet the demands for the masses, that is where all this came from??? I wonder if he was on to something...

I also wonder if we could get a hold of some Heirloom Non GMO wheat if it would have the same effect on us? It would be really cool to find out? Just to know...

From what I remember of bread it's not the grain itself it's how it's processed if it's milled very slowly it's much better for you . If you eat oats you feel better if you don't eat rolled oats, by whole oats .
It appears to be the same with any type of cookery, anything cooked slowly is better for you .
I recommend going on a raw food diet ( raw vegetables, raw fruit - my mothers blood count was dangerously low- after she went on the grape diet her blood count went back to normal -her doctor said keep doing what you are doing ,eating grapes is very filling ,but do it when you don't have to go anywhere for a period of time as you need animal protein to move quickly- it also appears to have cured a man who had stomach cancer )for anybody your sense of taste becomes incredible

 

[WittyAspie]

A lot of companies have begun putting "gluten-free" on their products. Like Cheerios, the products don't have anything in them that naturally contains gluten. If Cheerios contain gluten its from cross contamination at the processing plant. If GM produces multiple types of cereal at the same factory, which they almost certainly do, then they need to come up with better testing procedures. Otherwise they should be fine.

My Gramps always said, that when we genetically mutated all the grain to meet the demands for the masses, that is where all this came from??? I wonder if he was on to something...

I am on the opinion that your gramps was on to something. If we alter the way God made things we are bound to get some unexpected results.

 

[the_tortoise]

Hey Tortoise,

I'm not at all sure if you have a "Sprouts" near by? Bet you can order online? But they have a Cereal called "Honey Oh's" its certified gluten free and very good. I think the Company Name of the maker is Mom's Best Foods... To me tastes just like good ole Honey Nut Cheerio's...

Thanks, Chance! Looks like Sprouts is just in the US, though.

Do you mean this cereal? (Sorry the picture is so enormous, I don't know how to resize it in BBcode....the ways I tried didn't work.)

(I would be leery of trying this. I am fine with gluten-free -- i.e. certified uncontaminated -- oats but have had mixed experiences with regular oats -- sometimes they're fine but I've also gotten really sick. I've read that sometimes contamination with gluten from other grains can be over 200ppm.)

Sad that G Mills are not really being valid in the testing area... My guess is they just wanting to jump on the GF bandwagon to get some high profit returns with very little oversight.

Yeah. I think they were losing money because GF is a popular thing now, even for people who can eat gluten without any noticeable/immediate symptoms.

They also have a story about one of their employees having a relative who couldn't eat gluten. That could just be PR, though.

My Gramps always said, that when we genetically mutated all the grain to meet the demands for the masses, that is where all this came from??? I wonder if he was on to something...

I also wonder if we could get a hold of some Heirloom Non GMO wheat if it would have the same effect on us? It would be really cool to find out? Just to know...

I wouldn't rule out what your Gramps said, at least for some people. The protein content and composition in wheat may have changed only a tiny bit in hundreds of years but in biology a tiny change can make an enormous difference.

(That said, my concern with GMOs is more to do with loss of biodiversity and disruption of ecosystems, with companies producing genetically engineered crops to be able to tolerate higher doses of the extraordinarily toxic pesticides they also produce, and with patent law surrounding GMO crops that allows unbelievably greedy companies like Monstanto to sue farmers who are unlucky enough to have Monsanto's GMO seeds or pollen blown into their fields by the wind or deposited there by animals. I think that as far as the safety of GMO organisms for human consumption, it could probably go either way but a lot are likely safe for most people....or would be if it weren't for the extra pesticides dumped on some of them.)

I think as far as whether the ancient wheats are better, it probably depends on the individual, and on what type of immune reaction they are having and how severe it is.

For myself I can't eat the non-GMO ancient types/cousins of wheat like spelt and kamut (they are "triticum" species like modern wheat that contain very similar gluten proteins in somewhat maller quantities), I have the same reaction to all the ones I have tried as I have to modern wheat.

I did find this research abstract that analyzes spelt peptides in comparison to wheat peptides and concludes that it is similar enough to modern wheat to be toxic for people with celiac disease.

Also this research abstract that seems to be talking about the same sort of thing in language that goes beyond my current knowledge of biology.

 

[Streetwise]

I also found out that General Mills are going to stop calling cheerios "gluten free" in Canada, as of late last month.

Apparently the Canadian Celiac Association advised people last year that people with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity shouldn't eat the gluten-free cheerios.

General Mills say on their webiste the reason they are removing the label is that they are waiting for the government to come up with officially required testing methods for gluten contamination but I am skeptical.....

I would not be surprised if the real reason they are doing this voluntarily is because they are risking a public relations nightmare over their supposed-to-be "gluten-free" cheerios making people sick and in a worst-cas- scenario triggering a Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) investigation that might find them in violation of the regulations. (As of 2016 there were at least 700 pages of documentation related to complaints filed with the CFIA about gluten-free cheerios -- source: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/active/scripts/agen/proactive/atip/result.asp?lang=e&m=2&y=2017/).

Surely it would be easy for such a huge and profitable company to find out what the medical and scientific community consider to be acceptable testing standards ....? The info is out there, lots of it publicly published, and I wouldn't be surprised if the information has been provided to them already, without them ever asking for it, by advocacy groups.

Implementing those testing standards is another story and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they would never choose to implement them because it would be too costly and cut too deeply into their profits; Which would be totally acceptable and okay in my opinion -- it's not like any company is required to make their products edible for a minority of the population that has a specific food intolerance/allergy ..... but if that is the case why can't they just be honest about it? Surely they could spin in it in some positive way like by focusing on their concern for consumer safety and satisfaction above all else, and/or telling people that if they want certified gluten-free cheerios it would have to be a more expensive specialty item separate from regular cheerios (like how dairy companies sell lines of organic and lactose-free milk, separate from the regular milk and at a higher cost to account for the higher cost of production as well as the smaller demand) and that people who would buy such a product must let the company know there is enough consumer demand to justify the cost of establishing such a new product line?

I am going to try eating a small amount of the cheerios I bought, as it's a lot of hassle to return them and they could be gluten-free (the odds are pretty good, I think, but it seems to be a gamble). If they make me sick I'll give the rest of the box to someone else. I'm super disappointed, though....I thought I could eat cheerios again without any worry at all.

What the research says is the protein component of wheat that causes coeliac toxicity (which is glutamine phenylalanine and an amino acid) The first two are neurotoxins actually excitotoxins if the buildup in the Motor neurones Second one causes panic attacks and seizures it's also known as Aspartame .
And research biochemists found the toxin was present in all wheat whatever form it was.
So you're screwed with wheat .

 

[Streetwise]

I was recently at the grocery store and noticed the honey-nut cheerios in a sale display said "gluten-free" on the box.

In a haze of excitement (I haven't eaten cheerios for approx 10 years and they were a staple of my chidhood) and store-sensory-environment-induced fuzzy-headed-ness, I didn't think to look for any info about who had certified them as gluten-free and just bought them. (This is very unusual for me; Normally I read labels carefully and look for information about certification for claims like "gluten-free"....I've even done research about the standards and testing/inspection protocols different certifying bodies and companies/brands use.)

I thought about the certification today.....and found out that there isn't any.

General Mills does their own testing and the testing method they use seems extremely unreliable for determining the level of gluten in each box -- lot mean testing. Here is a description of the testing process from Gluten Free Watchdog's Updated Position Statement On Gluten-Free Cheerios.:

"General Mills defines a “lot” as a 24-hour production cycle. To arrive at a lot mean, the following protocol is followed:

1. Twelve to eighteen boxes of cereal are pulled during a production cycle
2. The contents of each individual box are ground
3. A sub-sample of ground product is taken from each box
4. The sub-samples are composited—meaning they are combined
5. The combined sub-samples are subject to additional grinding
6. Twelve extractions are taken from this combined, ground sample
7. Extractions are tested using the Ridascreen Fast Gliadin (R7002) and cocktail extraction solution"

Here is a handy infographic from In Johnna's Kitchen to explain why this is problematic:

.

(The maximum level of gluten-contamination considered "safe" for people with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity is 20ppm.)

General Mills continues to state that "every serving" of cheerios contains less than 20ppm of gluten.... but most people don't buy 12 to 18 boxes of cheerios, then grind all the cheerios from all the boxes into a flour and mix the flour together before eating a serving. (And is 12 to 18 boxes a proper sample size when something like 180,000 boxes of cheerios can be produced at a single factory in a day? Maybe it is, I don't know....it just seems small to me -- 18 out of 180,000 boxes is 0.01%.....By the way, the number 180,000 comes from a 2015 recall of 1.8 million boxes of gluten-free cheerios produced at a single factory over a period of 2 weeks.....# of boxes / # working days = 1.8 million boxes / 10 days = 180,000 boxes / day)

May I ask have you ever been able to make bread from gluten-free flour? I tried soya it's stayed looking like soya flour ,I have a neighbour who's coeliac and she said all she could make is scones

 

[the_tortoise]

From what I remember of bread it's not the grain itself it's how it's processed if it's milled very slowly it's much better for you . If you eat oats you feel better if you don't eat rolled oats, by whole oats .
It appears to be the same with any type of cookery, anything cooked slowly is better for you .
I recommend going on a raw food diet ( raw vegetables, raw fruit - my mothers blood count was dangerously low- after she went on the grape diet her blood count went back to normal -her doctor said keep doing what you are doing ,eating grapes is very filling ,but do it when you don't have to go anywhere for a period of time as you need animal protein to move quickly- it also appears to have cured a man who had stomach cancer )for anybody your sense of taste becomes incredible

I have always liked raw fruits and veggies better than cooked. When I was little there are many things I wouldn't eat cooked because cooking made them disgusting.

But, from what I understand, for some foods at least, there are losses and gains for cooked food.

With cooking, you tend to lose heat sensitive vitamins (like vitamin C) and enzymes, probably various phytonutrient antioxidant compounds -- definite losses. And if you boil things and don't consume the water/broth then you lose tons of whatever water-soluble nutrients the food contains.(the B vitamins, for example)

But at least with certain plant foods (it varies depending on the plant), you can increase the bio-availability (meaning increase the amount that your body can access and use) of things like vitamin A, folate and iron by cooking. Also for some people the breakdown of cellulose by heat helps with digestion and for beans extra cooking can break down other indigestible types of starch (cellulose is a type of starch, is why I say "other") that cause some people to experience severe gas and stomach upset. Some plants actually contain toxins that are broken down by cooking -- I've read that eating raw kidney beans can cause pretty severe illness from haemagglutinin poisoning.

I like to eat GF rolled oats soaked in milk instead of cooking them into oatmeal (saves dishes and prevents me having to clean burnt starch off of the stove when the pot boils over as it often does). Technically they aren't raw because the oat groats have to be steamed to be flattened into oat flakes, but they are more raw than if I put them in water and boiled them.

 

[Streetwise]

I have always liked raw fruits and veggies better than cooked. When I was little there are many things I wouldn't eat cooked because cooking made them disgusting.

But, from what I understand, for some foods at least, there are losses and gains for cooked food.

With cooking, you tend to lose heat sensitive vitamins (like vitamin C) and enzymes, probably various phytonutrient antioxidant compounds -- definite losses. And if you boil things and don't consume the water/broth then you lose tons of whatever water-soluble nutrients the food contains.(the B vitamins, for example)

But at least with certain plant foods (it varies depending on the plant), you can increase the bio-availability (meaning increase the amount that your body can access and use) of things like vitamin A, folate and iron by cooking. Also for some people the breakdown of cellulose by heat helps with digestion and for beans extra cooking can break down other indigestible types of starch (cellulose is a type of starch, is why I say "other") that cause some people to experience severe gas and stomach upset. Some plants actually contain toxins that are broken down by cooking -- I've read that eating raw kidney beans can cause pretty severe illness from haemagglutinin poisoning.

I like to eat GF rolled oats soaked in milk instead of cooking them into oatmeal (saves dishes and prevents me having to clean burnt starch off of the stove when the pot boils over as it often does). Technically they aren't raw because the oat groats have to be steamed to be flattened into oat flakes, but they are more raw than if I put them in water and boiled them.

Yes that's remind me I bought a potato salad from Sainsbury's and it was almost raw ,potato has Solanin which is a poison as do tomatoes all the nightshade family you think I realise when there was a plant called deadly nightshade

 

[the_tortoise]

A lot of companies have begun putting "gluten-free" on their products. Like Cheerios, the products don't have anything in them that naturally contains gluten. If Cheerios contain gluten its from cross contamination at the processing plant. If GM produces multiple types of cereal at the same factory, which they almost certainly do, then they need to come up with better testing procedures. Otherwise they should be fine.

Yeah, it's kind of funny and kind of disgraceful seeing "gluten-free" on things that have never had gluten in them (especially when it's things that would never even be contaminated)

It's also cross-contamination in the farmer's fields -- sometimes wheat and barley and other grains are grown in the same fields as oats, and harvested using the same equipment. Cross-contamination can also happen in transport trucks and train cars from gluten-containing grain left behind that gets mixed in with any gluten-free grain carried after.

 

[the_tortoise]

What the research says is the protein component of wheat that causes coeliac toxicity (which is glutamine phenylalanine and an amino acid)

I am confused about what you are saying because glutamine and phenylalanine are both amino acids....

Indeed it is the protein in wheat that causes celiac toxicity, but there are at least two types of proteins in wheat. One group are called gliadins and one are called glutenins. It's not known if it's both types of protein or just one of them that is the problem. (Or maybe it even varies from person to person?)

Both gliadins and glutenins have more amino acids than just glutamine and phenylalanine in them -- they also have lysine, arginine, tyrosine, cysteine, methionine, leucine, and a whole bunch of others.

The first two are neurotoxins actually excitotoxins if the buildup in the Motor neurones Second one causes panic attacks and seizures it's also known as Aspartame .

I am in the dark about glutamine and phenylalanine being excitotoxins but I am not saying you're wrong .... this is what I do know:

Glutamine is an essential amino acid so your body needs it to stay alive. But glutamine is part of some neurotransmitters so I can definitely see how an excess of it, or the wrong form of it maybe(?) could produce neurotoxicity.

Phenylalanine I really know nothing about except that people with phenylketonuria can't break it down properly and so it builds up in their bodies and causes brain damage and other health problems. As I understand it the only treatment is to avoid phenylalanine as much as possible.

Aspartame does have phenylalanine in it, but it also has aspartic acid (a naturally occuring amino acid) and methanol. I agree it's bad news, but it's different than just pure phenylalanine. Aspartame is artificial so it's not found in wheat proteins (or anything else in nature).

All these things are so subtle....the little differences make the difference between something harmless and something poisonous.

 

[the_tortoise]

May I ask have you ever been able to make bread from gluten-free flour? I tried soya it's stayed looking like soya flour ,I have a neighbour who's coeliac and she said all she could make is scones

Yes, but only soda bread (my body doesn't like too much yeast, and I am not a patient person with stuff like this....my mum used to make nice yeast-leavened bread but I have only a vague idea of how to do it from helping her knead the dough after it sat on the stove for what seemed like forever). I use lemon juice with baking soda to leaven my bread.

I've never used soy flour -- sounds like you need more oil or a fruit/vegetable puree (for moisture retention) and/or a different binder (protein and starch)? What else do you put in your soy flour bread besides soy flour?

I usually use mostly sorghum (because it's light so things rise nicer), oat (for gluey-ness and because I like oats), buckwheat, and millet or amaranth in smaller amounts (because I like the taste and variety of nutrients).

The nicest breads I've made have had lots of coconut oil and/or butter, milk, and one or two of either eggs, banana, or pumpkin. They've also had a little bit of chickpea, and either arrowroot starch or corn starch in small amounts.

 

[the_tortoise]

Yes that's remind me I bought a potato salad from Sainsbury's and it was almost raw ,potato has Solanin which is a poison as do tomatoes all the nightshade family you think I realise when there was a plant called deadly nightshade

I don't think I ever made the connection with deadly nightshade either -- go figure! I like raw potatoes but don't eat more than little bits raw -- and never if they've gone green from sun exposure (it's the green parts that have the most solanine apparently -- didn't know that until recently).

 

[OkRad]

Round up is in us all. It is so dangerous. I hate Monsanto. It is in oats, too. Some organic foods like soy and corn are not safe at all because , as you said, the "certification" is in house.

Glyphosate Found in Urine of 93 Percent of Americans Tested

 

[the_tortoise]

Round up is in us all. It is so dangerous. I hate Monsanto. It is in oats, too. Some organic foods like soy and corn are not safe at all because , as you said, the "certification" is in house.

Glyphosate Found in Urine of 93 Percent of Americans Tested

Yeah, glyphosate is worrisome. The WHO has concluded that it is "probably carcinogenic to humans" based on available research.

I generally trust organic certification....official certifiers are usually third parties (I've actually never seen any that were not), and those third parties have to be approved by the CFIA . I eat quite a bit of organic soy because it is pretty cheap and I can eat a block of tofu raw (I can never keep up with dishes so I try to avoid using them, and cooking takes too much time).

 

[Streetwise]

Yes, but only soda bread (my body doesn't like too much yeast, and I am not a patient person with stuff like this....my mum used to make nice yeast-leavened bread but I have only a vague idea of how to do it from helping her knead the dough after it sat on the stove for what seemed like forever). I use lemon juice with baking soda to leaven my bread.

I've never used soy flour -- sounds like you need more oil or a fruit/vegetable puree (for moisture retention) and/or a different binder (protein and starch)? What else do you put in your soy flour bread besides soy flour?

I usually use mostly sorghum (because it's light so things rise nicer), oat (for gluey-ness and because I like oats), buckwheat, and millet or amaranth in smaller amounts (because I like the taste and variety of nutrients).

The nicest breads I've made have had lots of coconut oil and/or butter, milk, and one or two of either eggs, banana, or pumpkin. They've also had a little bit of chickpea, and either arrowroot starch or corn starch in small amounts.

Never made it again was too disappointed I'm not coeliac

 

[Streetwise]

I am confused about what you are saying because glutamine and phenylalanine are both amino acids....

Indeed it is the protein in wheat that causes celiac toxicity, but there are at least two types of proteins in wheat. One group are called gliadins and one are called glutenins. It's not known if it's both types of protein or just one of them that is the problem. (Or maybe it even varies from person to person?)

Both gliadins and glutenins have more amino acids than just glutamine and phenylalanine in them -- they also have lysine, arginine, tyrosine, cysteine, methionine, leucine, and a whole bunch of others.



I am in the dark about glutamine and phenylalanine being excitotoxins but I am not saying you're wrong .... this is what I do know:

Glutamine is an essential amino acid so your body needs it to stay alive. But glutamine is part of some neurotransmitters so I can definitely see how an excess of it, or the wrong form of it maybe(?) could produce neurotoxicity.

Phenylalanine I really know nothing about except that people with phenylketonuria can't break it down properly and so it builds up in their bodies and causes brain damage and other health problems. As I understand it the only treatment is to avoid phenylalanine as much as possible.

Aspartame does have phenylalanine in it, but it also has aspartic acid (a naturally occuring amino acid) and methanol. I agree it's bad news, but it's different than just pure phenylalanine. Aspartame is artificial so it's not found in wheat proteins (or anything else in nature).

All these things are so subtle....the little differences make the difference between something harmless and something poisonous.

It's The amounts, my memory isn't the way it used to be ,I think the problem is a lot of people don't need Aspartame
So it's just toxic.
But probably expensive version of Aspartame is safer ,the problem with Aspartame is it also causes of panic attacks if you are anxious ,the gliadins cause the toxicity.
So definitely try a raw food diet wish I I could eat it more than once in awhile but I can't rid myself of gas .A staphylococcus infection damaged my kidneys The rest of my organs less so.And panic attacks and anxiety attacks don't allow anything to heal in the amount I have them .

 

[the_tortoise]

Never made it again was too disappointed I'm not coeliac

Oh, okay, that's good then

It's The amounts, my memory isn't the way it used to be ,I think the problem is a lot of people don't need Aspartame
So it's just toxic
But probably expensive version of Aspartame is safer ,the problem with Aspartame is it also causes of panic attacks if you are anxious ,the gliadins cause the toxicity.
So definitely try a raw food diet wish I I could eat it more than once in awhile but I can't rid myself of gas .A staphylococcus infection damaged my kidneys The rest of my organs less so.And panic attacks and anxiety attacks don't allow anything to heal in the amount I have them .

Yeah, too much of anything is bad.

I try to eat lots of fresh raw fruits and veggies, and I like raw pumpkin seeds and almonds (and raw milk cheese) but that's about as far as I'm willing to go with a raw diet. I feel pretty healthy, though.

Anxiety is brutal for the body....even though I don't have panic attacks very often, I get it.

 

[Judge]

Lots of good posts in this thread. I'm afraid when I "read between the lines" of such issues, what I am left with is an institutional and incestuous relationship between the US Food & Drug Administration, and its proverbial "revolving door" of corporate bean-counter$.

One group focusing primarily on the appearance of consumer health and safety, with the other focusing on how to appear to comply in the most minimal fashion in the production of their food product$.

Having underwritten a number of food product manufacturers, most of the public would be horrified if they knew how many contaminants and foreign bodies routinely squeak through amidst so much alleged government regulation.

And how such entities can buy off their insurers just as much as they are able to placate government regulators.