This week, the Australian chapter of an independent health research group published its study on food products marked “gluten free”. The George Institute for Global Health survey of more than 3000 products was led by Dr Jason Wu, whose message to consumers was clear in an organisational press release marked “Don’t Believe the Hype”.
Using the government-endorsed health star rating (HSR) as a measure, researchers, whose work can be read in in the British Journal of Nutrition, compared the nutritional value of foods labelled “gluten free” against their non-GF product equivalents. In news that will surprise no one with both a gut and a mind of reasonable utility, GF products scored no extra stars than their impure counterparts and, in many cases, scored lower. Junk food, it seems, is junk food, and the GF label is, in most cases, just a tip-of-the-hat to the unhealthy Western appetite for both snacks and quasi-science.
There are, said researchers, an afflicted minority who must avoid the consumption of gluten to maintain long-term health and avoid short-term discomfort. Coeliac disease, the condition whose symptoms can be managed through avoidance of the protein, has a national prevalence estimated at between 1 in 500 to 1 in 100, and a case has been made for screening in the Australian Medical Journal. But, says Wu, there is no need in most cases for avoidance of the stuff whose lack expressed on labels is little more than a “health halo” that promises but does not deliver a range of benefits. “Many people need gluten-free food, but there is a growing group who are only trying it for its apparent healthiness,” he said. However, “we found on average that gluten and gluten-free foods are just as healthy or unhealthy as each other”.
The organisation is driven by concern that consumers are making a misguided effort to improve their health through nutrition. “Fancy labels on gluten-free foods have the potential to be used as a marketing tactic, even on products that traditionally don’t have any gluten in them anyway,” said Wu, who mentioned the high cost of gluten-free. Like the manias for diet based on quasi-knowledge or compromised science that have come before and since, this demonisation of gluten serves only confusion and distracts from the fairly stable message of dietary science, which remains: eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
Given a belief so widespread in the evil of gluten that jeremiads are published to dishonour it and the scientific community tries to counter these with studies of the George type, you’d think you might find a single sane gluten-related submission into the inquiry proposed by Senator Cory Bernardi on food third-party certifications. An inquiry that alleges, by the way, to be about all food labelling and not just that provided by the nation’s halal certifiers.
While it is true that the GF label is not regulated by a single body and can be used by any company that recognises that people are idiots, it is also true that the overwhelming majority of the 440 submissions by individuals betray no interest in sticking to the rules. “SAHRIA [sic] LAW HAS NO PLACE IN AUSTRALIA,” say one couple, admirers of majuscule. “I try not to buy Halal products as it is supporting Muslims no one should have to pay a tax on someone else’s religious beliefs, you are probably funding terrorism, dont (sic) laugh, we are all like sheep being led astray BE WISE STOP THIS” says one particular outraged citizen, stubbornly failing, like Bernardi, to acknowledge the veracity of the investigation by the Australian Crime Commission into the matter. The organisation said last year that it was “not aware of any direct links between the legitimate halal certification industry and money laundering or the financing of terrorist groups”. Nor is this declaration enough to convince another gentleman, who is concerned for the “roll (sic) religion is playing in this nation” and abroad where, the citizen proposes, halal certification monies may flow to fund, you guessed it, terrorism.
“In the civic spirit of not being an arsehole, perhaps we do have a responsibility to consider how responsible food labelling may assist the health of the nation.”
I was able to endure only about 300 of the submissions, and these I found more emotionally draining than gluten is purported to be. But this incomplete survey upturns just a single urging for labelling on food that has anything to do with the properties of food. Oddly, it is in the first submission we find an entirely rational request for better labelling on foods deemed safe for diabetes, a much greater threat to the lives of Australian nationals than “SAHRIA” terrorists. Apart from that and a handful of submissions from Muslims who dare to explain that industrial food production sources its ingredients from such a broad range of ingredients that it is in the commercial interests of local producers to have their goods certified for export — a point also made by the Australian Food and Grocery Council — it’s all Facebook-activated cowardice of the “I won’t eat your death cult” variety.
It’s a great shame that organisations like the Q Society have provided much of the source material for individual submissions here. This inquiry could produce useful results to, for example, those who need to monitor their sugar, those who would like to trust the “free range” claims of egg producers or those who might propose that labelling should not ever serve the interests of a minority. But a minority is dominating this inquiry with claims even more false or misleading than those upchucked by the Paleo food industry with an almost unanimous plea that halal certified foods must be plainly labelled as such in order that customers can avoid them.
As things stand, no chicken or diabetic will benefit so much as one chocolate-loving couple, who blame Islam for the reduction in the size of the Freddo Frog. “Why is this minority standing over the 97% of Australians by forcing this phony tax upon us?” ask choco-philes, unable to see that (a) a marketing decision of moderate cost, like halal certification or focus group research, is not a tax however much the anti-halal agitators name it so; and (b) they are a minority demanding to have their consumer interests served.
I do understand the urge to avoid products that contain an unwanted moral ingredient, and it is for this reason I have resisted the purchase of both a SodaStream and an iPhone. I am prepared to forego the substantial lure of fizzy drinks and late tech because I have a thing about unfair labour. I am not claiming moral supremacy over my chocolate-loving compatriots here, and I certainly admire the resolve that causes them to shun Freddo, history’s most delicious amphibian. I am suggesting, however, that if you despise a particular practice, faith or ideology enough to want to boycott it, you should probably also hate it to the degree that you google “boycott+death+cult”. The onus is on me to avoid Israeli-made products as it is on the our Freddo lovers to avoid things they might deem too Islamic. Neither of us has any business subjugating the rest of Australia to our minority will.
But, in the civic spirit of not being an arsehole, perhaps we do have a responsibility to consider how responsible food labelling may assist the health of the nation. Perhaps this means regulating unfounded and potentially misleading health claims like “gluten free”, or perhaps it means revisiting the terms of the Heart Foundation tick or considering a system to aid consumers with diabetes.
Some 55,000 Australians suffer heart attacks each year, with cardiovascular disease our leading cause of death. Death attributed to Type 2 diabetes in the indigenous population remains at 1700 persons per year, what could very credibly be called a health crisis. The management of both these serious and costly diseases has been explicitly linked to diet, yet mention of how a simple thing like labelling could be efficiently deployed here remains largely absent from submissions to a report that is full of poorly punctuated whining on how Freddo needs a ghutra.
So, if we are not to permit a minority of whiners who believe that the fast-moving consumer goods marketing budget they are opposing is a “tax”, and that the greatest health threat to the nation is terrorism and not a diet formerly rich in Freddo, we should, perhaps, look to people like Wu for inspiration in our submissions to the inquiry. You have until the end of the month.
“Gluten free” is not a “unfounded and potentially misleading health claim”. It is a statement of fact that makes it easier for people with Coeliac disease to eat safely.
The current craze of people without Coeliac disease avoiding gluten is actually pretty great for those who have it. The range of safe products available on the market has massively increased over the last 5 years or so and this has great benefits for people who would otherwise have to eliminate whole categories of foods and beverages from their diet.
It is also misleading to suggest there is no benefit to people avoiding gluten. It is true that a small subset are intolerant to gluten, there are other people who are intolerant/allergic to grains that contain gluten (but not the gluten itself). This can lead to IBS. For those people avoiding gluten = avoiding those grains = feeling better.
Don’t knock the neo-hippies. I’m coeliac. A few decades ago it was nigh impossible to eat out. Now, thanks to all these lunatics who don’t need gluten free food but somehow think it’s good for them, there’s barely a restauranteur in the country that doesn’t offer a menu I can choose from. I can’t begin to tell you how difficult it was to travel in the 90s – now it’s easy. As Michael Zarb says below, we’ve never had it so good.
Think of the lunatic fringe as merely helping we “differently abled” folk to fit right in and enjoy normal lives. If they want to do it, they’re not causing themselves too much harm (beyond denying themselves real pasta and good bread) and they’re helping the tiny minority more than they know.
So an I Phone is a definite no no but you’re ok with forced funding of Islam through certification.
Fascinating view.
Sean. You have failed to read my statement in context. I explicitly said that I had a particular aversion to unfair labour. Which is to say, a company that imposes particular conditions on workers and, in fact, forces them to endure a range of indignities is something with which I have no truck. What I said is that this is my perspective but what I also say is that I should not bend other consumers to my will. That I happen to think that labour conditions which fail to meet a minimum standard of dignity and have been described by independent and Chinese authorities as “forced labour camps” is not the issue. The issue is one of personal responsibility when it comes to consumer choices. I avoid iPhone for this reason and you, if you wish, can avoid Halal foods. But what neither of us should expect is a range of “warnings” on food that make our decisions easier. It’s up to us to research and we cannot expect the state to impose warnings that coincide with out particular world views.
I would say that Halal certification is not “forced” by any means other than market demand. As many Muslims and many representatives from the Australian FMCG industry have said, while they welcome the opportunity for transparency in the certification process (one, by the way, we have not subject Kosher certification authorities to) this is something that is “forced” only by the market. Which is to say, if foods are shown to be palatable to the broadest range of consumers, they are more likely to be bought locally (I have heard the 98% argument, but then again, what manufacturer in their right mind would give up a potential 2% of the grocery buying public. This just doesn’t make sense) and certainly more export ready.
It is not “forced” nor is it a “tax” any more than any other marketing decision by a FMCG manufacturer. Focus groups costs, all marketing research in particular demographics, “gluten free” designation and a range of things that help bring a product to a wide or niche attention all cost money and are all only as “forced” as certification.
No Helen, I did read your statement in context, including your obvious bias.
You failed to mention that over 40% of halal certified products are not labelled, but that almost all kosher products are labelled. It gets even worse when you look specifically at meat.
You failed to address any of the discrimination that exists in Halal certification. Sikh’s for example find it next to impossible to identify a product such as cream, that may contain halal meat byproducts. Sikh’s are not permitted to eat any halal meat product regardless of whether it’s a chop or an ingredient in bread.
You haven’t addressed peoples objection to halal based on the 250,000 plus animals slaughtered in Australia each year without any stunning. The CSIRO will confirm for you that many of these animals suffer conscious pain levels for up to 30 seconds after having their throat cut.
You haven’t addressed the many Atheists, myself included, that simply object to the tens of millions raised for Islam each year through certification and would prefer not to fund religion, any religion. I honestly can’t recall the last time a Muslim organisation funded an Atheist convention – you?
You haven’t addressed the issue that many certifiers that are clearly operating as businesses, are operating as charities allowing them to collectively avoid millions in tax each year.
Did you know the Supreme Islamic Council of Halal Meat spent a third of its revenue on travel, most of that international travel? Quite an achievement for a domestic certifier. 320k spent on travel.
If you genuinely believe people aren’t forced then I can only assume you’ve never actually tried to identify certified products. If certification is indeed to enable Muslims to identify halal products, then why is it so difficult? Most companies simply ignore requests form information, try for yourself. I suggest you start with Simplot and SPC.
If you’re going to write an article on the subject at least be objective. There are many out there that don’t care about any 98:02 ratio, we don’t care about any terrorism angle, but we do care about many of the questionable practices of halal and more so halal certification.
Would you be as supportive of Halal Certification if you replaced the word Islam with Scientology? Remove the politically correct goggles and have a real look at the industry, then write your article.
Regards