it is all in your head

A few people have been asking me my thoughts on the new search study out of Australia. (And subsequent articles with inflammatory titles.) All of my responses have started with an audible sigh.

Bacteria existed before we had microscopes to see them. Just because we don't have a western medical test to "prove" someone has a disease/intolerance doesn't negate the illness, nor should it prevent her from trying an elimination diet. The media has offered a bizarre double-edge sword where people are simultaneously painted as irresponsible for not taking charge of their own health and belittled for trying alternative, non-western pharmaceutical options.

I am fine with a million more news stories clearly explaining that a gluten-free diet is not an effective tool for weight-loss. It is great if we continue to highlight that a gluten-free diet can cause nutritional deficiencies. But let's also include the fact that most of the processed gluten-containing foods are fortified with additional vitamins and minerals because they too are highly-processed and if you ate them all the ding-dang time you would have nutritional deficiencies. The difference is, instead of promoting the eating of more vegetables, food companies have added these essential vitamins and minerals into foods that normally don't contain them (or contain very little, or did contain them but where processed out).

I am also a big fan of more research; a lone study of 37 people in Australia does not conclusive make. So let's keep funding research, let's keep talking about alternatives to non-celiac gluten sensitivity/intolerance, but let's also keep these conversations grounded in the fact that there is a lot more we don't know.

When I joined celiac.com's message boards back in ye ole 2007, shampoo and face wash was a hot topic. Some people were noticing skin and digestive reactions when using products containing gluten. Others chimed in that there was no research proving one could react to gluten if it isn't ingested through the mouth and that clearly these people were: hypochondriacs, liars, attention seekers, aka "it was all in their head". This cutting hatred and dismissal of people who were in pain, or just seeking information, was part of the reason I departed. I don't see the point in negating people's experience, especially if we don't understand it. And now there are a bunch of gluten-free body-care products and growing awareness that if you slather things on your face it is pretty likely you are going to get some on your lips and in your mouth.

I think what is the most interesting out of this week of everyone-becoming-an-internet-expert-on-who-should-and-shouldn't-eat-gluten is the fact that people are breezing by the fact that the Australian study posited that people were having reactions/issue to other things: FODMAPS. So if by eliminating gluten are eliminating what is causing you discomfort/symptoms/reactions... isn't that a good thing? If a gluten-free or better yet an elimination diet is the key or gateway to figuring out what is wrong and feeling better, isn't that the goal?

So yes, more research, but until then let's be more support of those who are trying to get well and stay well rather than drawing more lines in the sand.

who gets to go out to eat (safely)

Yesterday's food section included "With more patrons with food allergies, restaurants cater to every need". I was excited to hear about chefs taking food allergies and sensitivities seriously. I was grateful for the inclusion of a famous chef being denied service because of his son's food allergies. This is stuff we deal with all the time.

But I was still left with a bad taste in my mouth. It is clear that even with the 2009 passing of Bill S.2701, there aren't universal standards for how to "handle" food allergies in restaurant kitchens. Don't get me wrong, things are a lot better. Awareness has significantly increased. But this article points to the fact that not all of these chefs, and their kitchen and front-of-house staffs, are doing the same thing. Some are using separate preparation surfaces, some aren't.

The other elephant in this article is that only high-end restaurants were profiled. This begs the question of who can afford a safe meal? I understand the allure of profiling high-end chefs and famous restaurants. It makes sense; it drives readership; I get it. I am really excited that a chef at Clio has Celiac Disease. I wish I could check out what she is offering, but it is just not financially feasible. And I am ok with that. I am not saying the because I have Celiac Disease I should be able to eat at Clio. What I think we need to talk more about it what does it really cost to prepare a meal safely for those with food allergies/sensitivities?

Those of us saddled with the task of trying to find safe food know that you don't go out to eat to a new place for the first time on a weekend. You don't go the night of a menu change. You don't go on a Monday when most chefs have their day off. You don't go to a new place during a lunch or dinner rush. You do ask a lot of questions. You do leave if you don't feel comfortable. And you do tip very well if the staff works as a team to get it right.

These are not "tips" they are essentials for not being poisoned.

I don't think you can talk about allergy awareness without highlighting all of the invisible work* that goes into getting it right. This article talks about some of this work from the chef's side, but ignores the diners experience, except for the person who asked for a gluten-free meal and then eats a conventional dinner roll.

For a second can we please just imagine that I am going out for dinner and my friend orders a gluten-free meal with me, so we can share (because I have the most awesome friends) and she still eats from the glutenrific bread basket. There are lots of different types of food negotiations happening. Granted, there are those who are selectively choosing when and when not to eat gluten, but that doesn't mean it is ok to be dismissive. How we eat, who we eat with, and sharing food is really complicated.

It is really complicated. And it is more complicated than the Globe piece points out. Nonetheless I am grateful to hear about more places taking things more seriously and offering more options. I am still hoping for more.

*I am invoking/borrowing Marjorie Devault's ideas here because food allergies make visible so much surrounding food safety, preparation, and knowledge acquisition required to get it right. 

how difficult is it to be gluten free

Jennifer Esposito's recent interview got a few wheels turning. Is it actually harder now than it was 4 years ago to be gluten free? Are there really no resources "out there" for Jennifer (and the millions of other humans who need to live gluten free)? 

When people are first diagnosed I cut them a lot of slack. I offer them advice. I tell others to be care, generous, and above all forgiving. When you are first figuring out the gluten-free landscape it can feel overwhelming and one can be prone to hyperbole. But after 4 years, perspective should have set in. There are now more gluten-free cookbooks, online resources, guides, friends, and medical professions who know what gluten is. It is far from perfect, but it is leaps and bounds better. It is also millions of times easier to find information than if you were diagnosed before the mid-90s... you know before the internet. 

I think we need a time out to talk about privilege. Gluten-free privilege looks like this:

If you had the ability to google anything about celiac disease or gluten

If you have the free time do research about gluten

You have a computer

People listen to you when you say your are ill

You found a doctor who would work with you and doesn't say its all in your head

You have a doctor

You have health insurance

You have the time and money to go to multiple doctors visits

You have paid sick time to have medical tests done like an endoscopy and colonoscopy

If you made it this far down the list, there is a high probability that you are white and not suffering from other healthcare disparities 

You have choices in what you get to eat and when

You have access to gluten free replacement foods (like gf bread)

You can afford gluten free replacement foods

You can afford the time and money to research gluten-free options

You have a platform where people listen to you (cough blogging cough)

You have access to gluten free recipes, cookbooks, guides

So why does this matter?

In the US, right now, 15% of people live at or below the poverty line ($23,050 or less a  year for a family of four). That is over 45 million people. It is actually a lot more complicate. Let's put this in perspective. The average actual cost of living for a family of 5 in the US is $58,627 a year. 

There are millions of Americans who don't have access to time, information, or money to buy gluten-free replacement foods. Millions of Americans don't have the privilege that Jennifer does, or that I do. There are people who won't get a chance this year to find out that by not eating gluten, she could feel a whole lot better. 

The second big problem I have with Esposito's comment is the fact that it has the effect of erasing people. By saying that there aren't any resources out there, she is blanketing decades of research, books, advocacy, and lives of people who helped make it possible for her to be diagnosed as having celiac disease and have something to eat before she opened her bakery. 

Jennifer, as does everyone, has the right to feel alone and frustrated with the current gluten-free marketplace in the US. It can be incredibly difficult to navigate through misinformation, cross-contamination, and feel like you are constantly having to educate others. It can be exhausting. But we need to acknowledge that we aren't the first human beings dealing with this and that things would be a lot more difficult with the incredible work of other people who shared recipes, engaged in scientific research without the funding of drug companies, provided support networks in-person and online, and made safe gf food options available before yesterday. Ignoring those people, erasing them from history, that doesn't help us at all. It hurts us. 

sarcasm, hyperbole, and access oh my

I treasure sarcasm, so when HuffyP throws at me some sarcasm with science I am in a special little part of hog heaven. It is really really really hard to not respond to asinine blanket statements about "food fads" that hit close to home without exploding in some form of rage. The reality is - it is personal. Being hyperbolic is a fun way of pointing out some pretty ridiculousness without perhaps seeming shout-y.

5+ years later I still get irked when people equate their "diet" with my inability to eat gluten without becoming ill - and opening up long-term health risks. It is not the same. Not remotely.

I am frustrated-at-hypothetical-you, equating your desire to avoid a food for weight loss is no the same. In fact, I have a new speech in my back pocket for you. When you say "oh maybe I should go gluten-free, its so much healthier and I could probably loose some weight" I say "most people gain weight on a gluten-free diet, many because they were malnourished, but a lot of gluten-free replacement foods are higher in calories. And you need to be very vigilant and read every label and you don't get to go to a new restaurant on a Friday or Saturday when its busy, and the biggest hurdle is crumbs and cross-contamination..." At this point your eyes start to widen, or glaze over, and a little piece of me hopes I have dispelled any notion that living gluten-free is anything like that 2 weeks you tried Weight Watchers in the mid-90s.

Also, I have noticed that "you" are a woman under 50. Men don't say shit like this to me. (White men however do feel the need to point at my cane and ask me "so what happened there?" like it is their business, and obviously temporary.) This isn't a controlled study, but 5 years of gf living and I feel like its gotta be a bit more than anecdotal at this point. Women who I speak to about my food needs assume I am doing it to loose weight, nearly every single time. They also assume that I want to discuss weight loss techniques because I am on a "diet". We have a lot of work to do to create a better, healthier social climate for women and girls to talk about food and to do so without having it bound up in the binary of either being on a diet or not.

Don't get me wrong, I will talk to you about what I eat, I will talk to you about what you eat, but if your goal is to have a performative discussion about how we are all on "some sort of diet" I am going to stop you and stop you hard. These discussions are not ok. I am not going to perpetuate how you having a cupcake and eating it in front of me makes you feel bad or guilty. I am not going to do it. First off - your cupcake is poison to my body. Secondly, it is a cupcake. It is a treat, a snack, a celebratory food. I am not going to be part of some food vilification or you feeling the need to go on and tell me about how many extra sit-ups you are going to "make" yourself do tonight as penance. I am just not going to be part of it. We can talk about things, and I will do my best to hear you and understand that you are probably dealing with a whole lot of feelings about your body and its relationships with food, but hear me people: I am not going to make you feel ok about hating your body or yourself for the food you eat.

I bring all of this up because I think one of the points that Sisson misses is that the term "diet" is causing a problem. No one who refers to abstaining from eating peanuts because they have a peanut allergy as a "peanut-free diet", though clearly that is what is going on. I have talked before about the power and limitations of language. The word "diet" conjures images of choice and cheating and the ability to choose, not the inability to choose.

Back to the article, basically it is great because it is a decent round up of research, laws, studies, and cursory trend analysis; plus the bonus of being sasserific. Like nearly every article out there, is misses out on who has access to the information and gf foods - it almost goes there when he talks about gluten-free replacement foods costing more and the current medical advice to not go gluten free without talking to a doctor first - but Sisson falls short of actually having a frank discussion (or sarcastic one) about who is getting the access, knowledge, and option to go gluten free. (Hint it is not those most impacted by the "exacerbated obesity problem")

And yes, clearly Sisson is promoting his own agenda - primal eating. If I am honest, we all have our own agenda. I want people to be less asshattery about gluten-free options actually being gluten free! I want real SNAP and school lunch reform that is socially, economically, and culturally appropriate! I want people to understand the social implications of dietary restrictions!  I want all french fry frialators to be dedicated to potatoes only! I want the US to stop subsidizing corn! I want the price of solar panels to come down! I want the minimum wadge to be a living wage! I want healthcare to not be tied to employment! (hopefully this one is coming soon)

I have a lot more wants, but I feel like I am pretty clear about it. Sisson was being a little sneaky and a few people are feeling touchy about it. I don't know. I could never be fully honest about all of my biases, Sisson at least linked to his site. It feels like a baby/bathwater thing. He offers a lot of information in one spot, and even thought I don't feel like he is making the strongest argument for giving up all grains, he is pointing out how bonkers the whole fad-climate is right now.

This is the third major oversight - so many people are getting it wrong
Fame and publicity is a weird thing. Gluten free being a fad has opened a lot of doors to more options, and more problems. It is a clear way of increasing profits, but not necessarily doing it right. (Thanks GFG for pointing out the hypocrisy in the gluten-free cheesecake with wheat husks) It is really really hard to be truly gluten free since it has become more popular. Yes there are more options, but most of those options aren't really safe. There is a giant false-sense-of-security-blanket draped over crumbs and soy sauce. We need to talk about this more.

Overall, yay for more research. Yay for more people talking about this. Yay for more nuanced discussions about these issues. And I will still hold out hope that one day we will look back and laugh at the amount of time we spent worrying, because there will be a cure. Till then, I think we need to try harder to include more people in the discussions and make sure those who need to be gluten free are and have the tools to do so. 

YOU SHOULD EAT GLUTEN

Look, a sensational title to draw you in. Ha! Gotcha!

So it took me a second to cool off from my knee-jerk reaction to Elissa Strauss's piece on Jezebel this morning. "Will Everyone Please Eat Gluten? Please? Because You Are Literally Killing Me, Kind Of" highlights a legitimate issue, but goes for it by poking a bear with a short stick.

If one more person writes one more article about how hard it is to have celiac disease without acknowledging the rare privilege it is to have the time, money, health insurance, and the unicorn of a medical doctor who gives a shit enough to figure out what is wrong with your shit, I am going to scream. 

Yes, there are people who are attempting to avoid gluten as a fad diet, but don't chastise people who are trying to improve their health by working towards figuring out if gluten is the culprit; there is a good chance they are doing it on their own and dealing with a lot of physical and emotional pain. Before you start clacking away on your keyboard take a moment and realize just how lucky you are. And if you want to keep on typing, do us all a favor and stop embarrassing yourself by acting like getting a diagnosis is something that everyone can do. 

So back to the legitimate issue the article does bring up...

People who don't "need" to avoid gluten are going gluten-free but aren't as adherent and causing confusion and dining out problems for those who must not eat gluten.

So this is something I personally care about, because I would like to be able to go out to a restaurant say "it needs to be gluten-free" and not get poisoned. But I also know it is a lot more complicated. In 2010 I gave a conference paper about this very issue. I am going to dork-out for a second, but hold on, I will get all rant-y again soon. 

My paper, "I Cannot Have It But I Want It: Food Analogs Mitigating Dietary Change" looked at just how people with dietary restrictions (medical, personal, religious, ethic, etc) use language and substitute foods. What was really fascinating was how and when people chose to use the word "allergic". In the US, the word "allergy" comes with very specific visuals - people going into aliphatic shock, people needing an EpiPen, a legitimate threat to life - allergy in the restaurant world also can be code for "potential law suit". The word allergy can be used to traverse language barriers when working with kitchen and wait staff - it is an instant conversation stopper. (Especially in Massachusetts were we have laws that require allergy awareness training for restaurant kitchen staff.)

And this is a good thing. It is good to have language - and one special word - that can explain a whole lot of words, quickly. It saves us time, aggravation, confusion; language is awesome!

So what happens when people use the word "allergy" but aren't allergic?

If I say I am allergic to avocados. I go out to eat and there are free chips and guacamole and only have a little bit of it, what does that do? 

1. Allergies are tricky - some people have a threshold, aka they can be exposed to a small amount of something and not have a big reaction. So I could eat maybe a tablespoon of avocado before I start getting itchy. This does not mean I am not allergic, it just means I have a higher threshold than someone who's throat would close up if they had a very small amount. 

2. Ok, allergies are not universally similar, but we are all using this same word. So what happens then socially when I don't want slices of avocado in my tacos, but I do want to have a little guacamole?

Here is the trouble. People who are very reactive, or have little to no threshold for avocados, may get really angry when I order food and use the term "allergic" because if a waiter hears me say allergic, but sees me then eat the food I said I can't eat - invoking images of ambulances and lawsuits - perhaps she is going to take the next person a lot less seriously. 

3. What happens when people need to avoid a food, but don't have a word like allergic? Ding, ding, ding - celiac disease! I am technically not allergic to gluten - I do not have a histamine reaction - I have an autoimmune response. They are different, but in the interest of not getting violently ill, not wanting to spend 10 minutes educating waitstaff making $2.63 an hour, I use a shortcut: gluten allergy. People do this all the time. Linguistic shortcuts are awesome! Getting your point across quickly and clearly is wonderful and really important. 

Back to the article...

Strauss highlights a current problem in the U.S. with gluten-free being a food trend. Popularizing gluten-free replacement foods (breads, pizza, cookies, etc.) is a double-edge sword. It is awesome to have more options. Truly it is way better than 5 years ago. But as she points out, with the increase in options, there is a quagmire of problems. Crumbs are a huge problem. Here is the thing - crumbs are only a huge problem for people who are allergic or who have celiac disease - they are not a huge problem for people who are trying to avoid gluten for other reasons. But we are all still using the same language. We are all still trying to quickly convey "hey I don't want/can't have gluten in my food, so don't put it there, ok, no really, no gluten" in a fast, efficient manor. So whether saying avocado allergy, or gluten allergy, people are using the word allergy as a short-hand for don't put _____ in my food. 

But what about those pesky crumbs?

If you are on the Gwenth fad-diet of avoid gluten, crumbs are not going to hurt you - and you likely will never know that your food was not prepared to your specifications. If you have an allergy, or celiac disease you will know. 

Gwenth orders gluten free, the cooks and staff can get it right or get it wrong and if you don't have a reaction - no one is going to know. 

Here is the problem. The next person who requests a gluten-free meal, and the cooks and staff do exactly what they did for Gwenth, but the customer is actually allergic and those few crumbs can be a big problem. 

I get it, I get frustrated too. I cannot stand when the gluten-free bakery option is on the bottom shelf, with crumbs falling on it from the gluten-filled options above it. As gluten-free has become trendy, it is harder to be able to clearly relay no, seriously do not feed be even a small amount of gluten, to servers. I feel Strauss's pain because I live with it. 

*For the record, I am not allergic to avocados. That would be a bummer because they are delicious. 

call for compassion and rhetoric change

I read, and normally like and agree with, the Triumph Dining blog. They provide clear, concise information about new products, research, etc. On the whole, they get it right.

Today they are guilty, at the very least, of the lack of compassion. We - those who must avoid gluten - are constantly undermined by those who belittle our perceived "choice". When you categorize intense label scrutiny as "neurosis" it is really difficult to not want to give you the middle finger.

For those who react when using skin products containing gluten - it is not "neurotic" to check labels - this is self preservation.

It is time for "us" to change the way we, and others, talk about maintaining our health and safety - because that is what it is. It is not neurotic to not want to be poisoned, it is common sense.

PS - If you are going to reference a study that "some dish soaps use hydrolyzed wheat proteins, and can even trigger reactions if a Celiac eats off that dish washed with “gluten-filled” soap!" cite it. Otherwise your $0.02 isn't really worth anything at all.

Restaurant week

My feelings have not wavered since I wrote about Restaurant Week. I have zero desire to go out in the middle of a week-long disaster of epic gustatory proportions. Recently recovering from food poisoning only adds fuel to my fury.

what is in a name, or a flour mix

Mr. Keller apparently has not been reading my rage as of late. Its cool, I can specialize my dislike for just him. Cup4Cup is the French Laundry papa's new retail market endeavor - a gluten-free flour blend for $19.95 for 3lbs. So let's see, where to start.

1. $6.65lb for ingredients that cost less if you purchase them individually
2. Not organic, local or special in any other than, LET ME SLAP A NAME ON IT AND UP-CHARGE
3. Contains dairy - which sucks if you are at all trying to figure out what your body is reacting to. And it also contains milk powder is nasty (its dried, soured milk. I have running water, refrigeration and am not camping, I desire this about as much as MREs).
4. Is a product that does not do anything "new" and is in no way more useful than any other bs, overpriced, packaged flour mix out there.
5. I firmly do not believe that one flour blend will/can replace all gluten-free substituting needs. Even if this one "could" can we discuss the gross lack of any form of fiber?!

I will continue to mix my own blend of flours, starches and gums, at more reasonable prices, thank you very much.

sometimes you feel like a nut

Today's Jezebel piece, When Everyone Things Your Deadly Allergy is Just a Fad is interesting, thought not surprising. Bullying people who are different? Who would have ever guessed?!

Let me just stop for a moment and point out that peanuts are not technically nuts, but legumes. I do this not to be snide, but as an interest counterpoint to some of the rather nasty commentators who are venting their frustrations about how they do not believe people should be able to use the word "allergy" if they need/want to avoid a food.

Those of us throwing around the American Standard English, engage in slang, abbreviations, slight-means and bastardizations all the time. We also change how we talk depending on who we are talking to/with.

I do not go around saying PEANUTS ARE LEGUMES, YOU ARE LYING, YOU ARE LEGUME-ALLERGIC! I know what people mean, and more importantly, food prepares, packagers and servers know the shorthand and common misnomers that people use to describe those who go into anaphylactic shock if they consume Arachis hypogaea.

I have mentioned before that I often will use "gluten allergic" to quickly expedite explanation and ordering at restaurants - especially now in Massachusetts, where the new allergy bill has passed. I have found that "I have celiac disease, an auto-immune disorder that makes me intolerant to gluten" is way too many words, confusing, and rarely gets the point across in a fast-paced restaurant and kitchen. Its also a lot easier to tell a friend without having to go into hand-puppetry of intestinal linings. (Oh you know I make villi with my fingers)

So, in light of the fact that even when people use the term "allergic" people still don't believe him/her, I think we have a bigger problem than who can or should be using the term. Why is the default response that people are lying, wanting attention or hypochondriacs?

When traveling, pack extra snacks

Oats are not gluten-free. In the United States, oats are NOT gluten-free. I want to shout it from the rooftops - OATS ARE NOT GLUTEN FREE!

This is not because oats contain the proteins gliadin and glutenin - which together make up gluten - but all standard oats in the U.S. are grown, housed, and/or processed with gluten containing grains (wheat, rye, barley, etc.) that make oats NOT gluten-free.

I spent part of last week at the Association for the Study of Food and Society's annual conference in Missoula, Montana. I have never been to a conference with so many gluten-free labeled options. Buffet-style does not keep items safe for very long, but I was excited to see more than undressed salad as an option. There was at least two items I could eat at almost every meal.

Then there was the snack break on Saturday where the fruit and granola compote was labeled "dairy free" and "gluten free".

I subdued my rage and panic of "ohhhhh shit, was what I ate yesterday really safe?!??!!"

I quietly pulled aside one of the catering staff and explained that oats in the U.S. are not gluten free and that the sign was incorrect, and should be removed - if possible. (I quelled my desire to violently sharpie-out the inaccuracy. And note, I did not get angry at the staff member. It was not her fault, her call, nor could she do anything about it other than relay the info to the chef. Never yell at the in-between-staffer making minimum wage. You have all seen Fight Club, so I won't harp on this point.)

In all honesty, I had a great time and did not get sick. I did head over to the campus store and grab some extra Lara Bars and snacks so I could avoid the remainder of the catered foods.

Dining out was relatively easy in the city. I had a few killer meals... but I will post more about that later!

Dear NYT, STFU

A friend handed me the Style section of this Sunday's New York Times. Smack, in color, in front of me, was the article "Looking for a Plan B? Make it Gluten-free". I wanted to like it... well I wanted to not hate it. What started as a medium irritation festered into a full-on yelling-at-the-newsprint swearing event. I was waving the paper back and forth, yelling quotes aloud, the full nine yards.

It began with:
Who even heard of gluten (or the lack thereof) a decade ago? The estimated 1.3 percent of the population who had celiac disease, which is basically an inability to digest gluten, did, but the general public awareness was minimal.

I realize it is the Style section, but that is no excuse. 

Celiac disease is NOT "basically an inability to digest gluten" it is an autoimmune disease. There is a big fucking difference.

Then there is Ms. Gillette, who allowed food-allergic FIVE-YEAR-OLDS to cook with items they are allergic to:
She found a startling number of them could not eat the treats they made because of allergies; the most common allergy was to gluten. “There’s nothing like seeing a five-year-old make a chocolate chip cookie and she can’t dive into it,” Ms. Gillette said. “It kind of broke my heart. I told myself I’m going to have to teach myself how to be a gluten-free chef.”"

Who the hell would ever EVER allow children to touch, never mind cook with ingredients that could make them violently ill? Even if the kids do not eat the final product or ingredients, there is a good chance they are going to get it on their clothing, hands, face and increase the risk that they could ingest some. This sounds like the most irresponsible educator ever.

Oh then there is this gem by Edie:
“I’d tasted a lot of gluten-free bread and thought, ‘Wow, this stuff is terrible,’ ” she said. “I thought I could do better and thought because I didn’t need to eat gluten-free, I could hold it to a higher standard.” 

Who the fuck do you think you are? Just because you have the luxury of not having to eat gluten free, you have a superior palate? Whether intention by the author or not, this made dear Edie sound like an asshat. First of all, taste is cultural and personal - so what is "good" is relative. Secondly, gluten-free substitute foods, like bread, have been around for decades and the demand for "better" has pushed many before Ms. Irwin to be creative in the kitchen and in professional bakeries alike.

There is also an undertone throughout the article that gluten-free bakeries are the "plan b" option for those looking for a life/career change and want to cash-in on a money-making trend. The last couple profiled are the Kings, who warn that:

“Anyone who thinks they’re going to start a food company as we did, with no money, better be passionate about it,” he said. “If you’re in it for the money, good luck to you.” 

While perhaps helpful advice to anyone thinking about starting any business venture, the article ignores that this possible "plan b", is cashing in on misfortune.
“There was a certain satisfaction in putting up a 10-story building,” Mr. King says of his old profession. “But it can’t be matched when someone thanks you for something you’ve given them that they haven’t been able to have.” 

No discussion about who gets to eat at these new bakeries, nor how much their gluten-free alternatives to gluten-filled standards cost. Us, dear readers, are also left wondering if these businesses are financially sound, never mind successful... though a fluffy write-up in the Times usually isn't bad for business. 

Sex and the Celiac - unheathy and offensive

This is a pretty happy place most of the time. Every once in a while something so out there comes around that I feel compelled to unleash all of my not-blogged fury out in one controlled burst.

Cue: Sex and the Celiac.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for talking about sexual health and pleasure and connecting autoimmune issues with other heath issues. Where steam starts spewing out of my skull is when it is done under the Viagra-like puppetry of "you are not a real man if you are not getting laid and BRAGGING about it with your male friends". Oh and its perpetuated by a woman. I get that you are trying to be funny, but no, just stop.

A healthy sex life starts with healthy respect and communication. This means not treating women as sexual conquests that should be bragged about or bemoaned around the bro-down at the water cooler. Here is a crazy idea - how about encouraging a dialogue between partners?

And maybe just maybe consider that if you are going to talk about sexual health, that you include non-hetero hypothetical couples - at the very least Sex and the City did.

OK STING, I HAVE HAD IT

Do you ever become filled with rage and shake your fist in public at non-visible speakers when Sting's Fields of Barley plays?
This is the third time I have heard this song in public this week.

Dear Sting,
Stop taunting me or at the very least make the song good enough that I don't notice your mocking lyrics.

Dear grocery stores and coffee shops,
Stop playing this song if you wish my continued patronage.

Dear iPod people,
Stop mocking that I won't get hip to your technology.

Gluten Free Flour Blends

I have had it with gluten-free flour blends. My rage takes two forms: printed in cookbooks and those that line grocery store shelves. Both come with the guise of "making gluten-free baking easy" by eliminating the need to own, scoop and measure 4+ ingredients to approximate all purpose wheat flour. In theory, this is a nice idea, but in practice its the gf equivalent of having a box of Jiffy Corn Mix on your shelf for all your baking needs, corn muffins and everything else included. Its bunk. First of all, its incredibly egotistical and presumptive to declare that you have created the be-all, end-all gluten free mix. While you may have concocted a hodgepodge of flours and gums that works for some things, by no means have you solved all of my gluten free cooking and baking needs. The ones in the store I can write off as annoying, expensive and a waste of time. The ones that litter the pages of gluten-free cookbooks... WHO DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE?!

So you wrote a cookbook, and developed a flour blend, so what. You think you are so awesome that I will never again in my entire history of me eating want to maybe just maybe use another cookbook?! You think that I am going to make up a batch of your product and only cook out of your book for the rest of my eating life? Wrong-o buck-o. I have nothing wrong with the idea of this, but for those who say only use your book for inspiration and then end up doing math an scrap paper all over the kitchen trying to determine how much xanthan gum is really necessary to hold pancakes together because it seems like your flour blend indicates such a small amount its really not worth doing the minuscule math for (all in British volume scoops rather than sensibly BY WEIGHT) but knowing sans gum these pancakes will never be cakes, just crepes... why do you do this to me?

If you want to make up your own flour blend, put the proportions needed next to your "so-and-so's-better-than-everyone-else's-gluten-free-flour-mix". Otherwise I am putting you back on the shelf, right next to the boxed mixes.