Nov 082015
 

[These articles help to explain the massive misinformation provided by people like Al Gore and Others. Therefore we include them for education and research. The global warming alarmists have convinced many that carbon dioxide is a poison and the more we produce the more the earth is becoming poisonous and hotter. Read this article with an open mind and learn.] 

[The TRUTH is that almost ALL the food you eat is PRODUCED by CARBON DIOXIDE!

Green plants from plankton in  the sea, grass, hay, straw, vegetables and fruits of all types PRODUCE the food we eat by their leaves TAKING IN carbon dioxide during periods of light and using it using the process of photosynthesis to convert carbon dioxide and other nutrients into all types of food that we eat. And the meat we eat is produced by animals who also eat green plants. CARBON DIOXIDE! OUR FRIEND, NOT OUR ENEMY!!!

CARBON DIOXIDE is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY or we would have NOTHING TO EAT! This article addresses that truth!]

 

Indur Goklany: The great carbon boom

People walk on the Champs Elysees during the
AP Photo/Thibault CamusPeople walk on the Champs Elysees during the “day without cars”, in Paris, France, Sept. 27, 2015.

Second in a series

Countdown_To_Paris
On the eve of the UN climate summit in Paris, all delegates would be well advised to reflect on how the story of man-made global warming debate started.

 

Svante Arrhenius, winner of the 1905 Nobel Prize, hypothesized over a century ago that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) due to fossil fuel consumption would warm the world. He also hypothesized that higher CO2 levels would stimulate plant growth. These, he reasoned, would reinforce each other and increase the biosphere’s productivity to the benefit of mankind.

 

Remarkably, proponents of the notion that global warming would be catastrophic unless CO2 emissions are curtailed drastically (or, in short, “warmists,”) embrace the first, but ignore the second hypothesis. “Remarkably,” because both satellite and ground based data confirm that the biosphere’s productivity has increased in managed ecosystems (e.g., agriculture and managed forests) and in unmanaged or natural ecosystems.

The plant-productivity increase has been steady, large and ubiquitous: widespread evidence confirms that the earth is greener; terrestrial ecosystems’ productivity has increased 14% since 1982. Further, the IPCC estimates that the terrestrial biosphere productivity is 5% over pre-industrial times, that is, “carbon fertilization” due to rising CO2 levels has helped overcome any productivity loss from deforestation and other habitat loss. (Habitat loss is the greatest threat to terrestrial biodiversity and natural ecosystems.)

Carbon dioxide emissions over two centuries have produced massive benefits for humanity — and nature. Halting emissions could increase hunger and  habitat destruction

 

This productivity increase is to be expected: the results of thousands of scientific experiments indicate that at current levels of atmospheric CO2, crop yields should increase by 9-15% relative to pre-industrial levels because higher CO2 increases rates of plant growth (i.e., photosynthesis), improves the efficiency with which plants use water, increases their drought resistance and, possibly, increases resistance of crops to pests and weeds.

 

These increases in crop yields, in addition to helping feed a larger population, have limited the need to convert existing habitat to farming. The increased crop yields from higher CO2 levels reduced habitat loss by 11-17% compared with what it would otherwise have been. Consequently, more land has been left relatively wild.

 

Satellite evidence also confirms that increasing CO2 concentrations have resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types. Moreover, increasing CO2 concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems, and although this effect may be partially or fully offset by the effect of lower average pH on calcification rates in some marine organisms, the evidence of net harm in wild marine ecosystems remains sparse.

 

Equally important, contrary to warmists’ claims, since fossil fuels helped start the Industrial Revolution in the mid-eighteenth century and CO2 emissions skyrocketed, so have aggregate indicators of human well-being. Data back to 1750 show the dramatic escalation in measures of well being and, as the nearby graph shows, the bulk of the increase has occurred since 1900 as global carbon-based industrial development soared (See graph).

Carbon

Since 1750:

  • Carbon dioxide emissions increased from the relatively imperceptible (3 million tons) in 1750 to 9.5 billion tons in 2011;
  • Population increased nine-fold from 800 million to 1.6 billion 1900 and 7.3 billion in 2014;
  • Average GDP per capita, perhaps the best measure of economic and material well-being, increased thirteen-fold, from $650 to in 1750 to $1,261 in 1900 and $8,500 in 2014 (in 1990 International dollars);
  • Average life expectancy, probably the single best indicator of human well-being, has more than doubled from 26 years in 1750 to 31 in 1900 and to 71 years in 2013.

These indicators show no sign of a sustained downturn.

Empirical trends indicate that climate-sensitive indicators of human well-being have also improved markedly over recent decades, notwithstanding the gloomy prognostications of warmists.

The above-noted increases in crop yields reduced chronic hunger in the developing world from 24% of population in 1990–92 to 14% in 2011–13, despite a 37% increase in population. The increase in GDP per capita reduced the absolute poverty level in developing countries by almost three-quarters between 1981 and 2012 (from 54% to 15%). Between 1990 and 2012, more than 2 billion additional people obtained access to better sanitation and safer water. The global mortality rate for malaria, which accounts for about 80% of the burden of vector-borne diseases that may pose an increased risk due to global warming, declined by 95% since 1900. Deaths from extreme weather events have declined by 93% since the 1920s and, once the increase in the amount of wealth-at-risk is accounted for, there has been no increase in economic damages from extreme weather events.

The wide divergence between dystopian warmist claims and empirical reality can be attributed to the fact that those claims derive largely from unvalidated models. Empirical data, however, indicate that these models have overestimated the rate of warming.

A recent study compared projections from 117 simulations using 37 models versus empirical surface temperature data. It found that the vast majority of the simulations/models have overestimated warming, on average by a factor of two for 1993–2012 and a factor of four for 1998–2012.It also estimated that the observed trend for 1998–2012 was marginally positive, but not statistically significant; that is, notwithstanding model results, warming has essentially halted.

Impact models, likewise, have underestimated direct benefits of CO2, overestimated the harms from climate change, and underestimated human capacity to adapt which enables the benefits to be captured even as it also reduces the harms. Consequently, these models overestimate net negative damages.  Not surprisingly, dire prognostications of increasing death, disease, and decline of human and environmental well-being from global warming are not reflected in the empirical data.

To summarize, compared with the benefits from CO2 on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of CO2-induced warming on the frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, accelerated sea level rise, vector-borne disease prevalence, and human health have been too small to measure, are non-existent or swamped by other factors.

It is very likely that the impact of rising CO2 concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. No compelling case has been made that the net impacts of climate change will be negative by the end of this century, particularly given the gradual rate of warming observed recently.

In fact, the more gradual the rate of warming, the greater the likelihood of successful adaptation, and the cheaper that adaptation.

Empirical data confirm that the benefits of CO2 are real whereas the costs of warming are uncertain, dependent as they are on the results of climate models and impact methodologies that tend to overestimate negative impacts.

Halting the increase in CO2 concentrations abruptly, or reducing them, would immediately halt or reverse improvements in plant growth rates, increasing hunger and habitat destruction. On the other hand, any consequential change in warming would happen much more slowly. Thus, any reductions in CO2 emissions would deprive people and the planet of the benefits from CO2 much sooner and more surely than they would reduce any costs of warming.

Financial Post

This op-ed is derived from CARBON DIOXIDE: The good news, a paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Indur Goklany, an independent scholar and author, was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a U.S. delegate to the IPCC, and an IPCC reviewer.

 Posted by at 21:10
Nov 082015
 

[Note: Since this topic is one of the hottest topics ever discussed in modern times, we have included it here as an educational resource for research.]
Peter Foster: Paris’s scary climate agenda

The earth dome at France's environment ministry has been built to promote the Climate Change Conference 2015.
The earth dome at France’s environment ministry has been built to promote the Climate Change Conference 2015.

First in a series

Countdown_To_Paris
Details of two international agreements were released on Monday. One, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which reduces trade barriers between 12 signatories, including Canada, got lots of ink. The other, which purports to control global weather, end the era of fossil fuels, and place all human activity under bureaucratic control, got very little.

The pretensions of the latter text, released by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, ADP, which is assigned to come up with an agreement to put to the vast UN climate meeting in Paris in December, are mind-boggling.

The fact that they attracted little attention means either that the media and public have no idea of the climate agenda’s implications, or that nobody takes the agenda seriously. Probably both. After all, the UN has been promoting the “urgent threat of climate change” for more than 25 years.

 

While the text of the TPP has yet to be finalized, that of the Paris meeting is skeletal. But, like skeletons, it is scary.

 

If anybody doubts the significance of the changes to which the puppeteers of Paris aspire, they should refer to remarks made last week by Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, who suggested that the climate thrust could destroy massive value as oil and gas assets are “stranded” by climate legislation.

 

Carney, former Governor of the Bank of Canada, has been lauded by segments of the Canadian mainstream media as a “rock star.” Indeed, he does bear some similarity – at least in orientation — to icon Neil Young, who has become deranged over the oil sands and recently signed his name to Naomi Klein’s loopy Leap Manifesto.

 

Carney would perhaps see his status as more analogous to another anti-capitalist crusader, Pope Francis, the man who put the “vestment” in “divestment.”

 

In fact, this is not the first time that Carney has addressed the risk of stranded assets. After a similar Bank of England claim earlier this year, Carney gave evidence before a House of Lords committee. Nigel Lawson, the redoubtable former Chancellor of the Exchequer and founder of skeptical think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, noted that the bank’s projections were entirely at odds with those of the International Energy Agency, which saw decades of fossil-fuelled growth. Lawson suggested that Carney should stick to his financial mandate, and that the Bank should stop spouting “green claptrap.” (Significantly, the draft Paris text cites “financial institutions” as key partners in its fight against capitalism. Meanwhile Carney isn’t just boss of the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, he is head of the Financial Stability Board, a global organization of central bankers. He is reportedly to push the climate agenda at a G20 meeting in November).

 

Text of a draft agreement for the UN climate conference betrays a desperation to negotiate a deal

 

The Paris text’s most significant feature is its lack of detail. It starts with the suggestion that the parties recognize “the intrinsic relationship between climate change, poverty eradication and sustainable development.”[Ya, right!: For one poverty eradication is impossible. Many people have the freedom to be poor if they want to and not bother to learn anything about handling money properly. On the other hand we have poorer nations. We cannot help them just by sending them money as many of the leaders of those countries are corrupt and generally keep the money and use it for their own aggrandizement. However there are agencies like Mennonite Central Committee, World Vision and others with great reputations that always have a person in charge in the country receiving the aid to make sure the money gets used to the benefit of those have nots.]

But although the relationship may be intrinsic, it is far from clear. Insofar as the promoters of the agreement seek to starve poor countries of financing for “maladaptive” fossil fuel development, they are promoting poverty. [Thus begins the hypocrisy!] Developing countries want nothing to do with having wind and solar foisted on them. They are gung ho for coal. They are also interested in the annual US$100 billion of handouts, starting in 2020, that was promised six years ago at Copenhagen but that, true to form, has not materialized. [Which brings us to the point. Since these climate conferences have not invited God in order to get permission to change the climate, all resolutions are just empty words. As Shakespeare put it, “

“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Macbeth – Act 5, Scene 5
I am sure that Shakespeare at the time did not realize that he was a prophet over 500 years ago pointing to climate change conferences. … “It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” ]

Many countries, including Canada, have committed, with fingers crossed, to emissions reductions targets, but few have specific plans. 

[ Let’s just go and meet the boys, and errr ladies and just have some nice speeches to make ourselves feel like we are actually doing something useful. Then we can go home and forget that the conference does nothing but generate ambitious headlines aspiring to build a new tower of Babel which also got nowhere!”
“And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death”]

The negotiating text betrays that peculiarly UN mindset that demands that all the world’s alleged problems be shouldered and addressed together, a kind of Gethsemane Syndrome. Not only will a giant interlinked series of new bureaucracies oversee programmes to regulate the climate and encourage appropriate technology and development to end poverty. They will negotiate these joint wonders while ensuring sensitivity to women, natives and the disabled. Their call to action claims to be based on “the best available scientific knowledge,” yet it also incorporates “traditional” — that is, distinctly non-scientific — knowledge. Among additional “preambular paragraphs” being considered is a reference to “Mother Earth. Copyright by Dole” This is not just a spiritual add-on. As a provider of “environmental services” Gaia needs to be paid. Since she has no bank account, the UN is more than prepared to act as her proxy.

 

The document is a compendium of parentheses, that is, wording or issues that have yet to be decided. One parenthesis suggests that the famous 2 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures (since before the Industrial Revolution) that will put us at an existential tipping point might be changed to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Could that be a recognition of the inconvenient fact that global temperatures are refusing to rise despite unprecedented increases in the CO2 that is meant to drive them?

 

The desperation to negotiate a deal is obvious in provisions that signatories may be able to pull out after three years, and that there are no penalties for non-compliance.

 

The document is very big on “capacity building,” which means bureaucrats teaching people to think like them, in terms of “modalities and procedures” and “facilitative dialogues.” Best practices are a top priority, particularly if they are “scalable and replicable.” Needless to say, the world’s most obscure document is big on transparency.

 

In that speech last week, Pope Mark claimed that “climate change will threaten financial resilience and longer term prosperity.” But the primary threat comes not from climate change, but from climate change policy.

 

The Paris text several times stresses the critical importance of cities and non-governmental organizations in promoting the climate agenda. Thus, to the extent that Canadian export pipelines are being opposed by local authorities in Vancouver and Montreal, and challenged legally and illegally by the likes of Greenpeace and ForestEthics, the UN’s agenda isn’t just bureaucratic fantasy. It’s a real threat to prosperity and democracy.

 Posted by at 10:18
Jun 242015
 

Warmer is better: Junk Science Week

National Post

Some present global warming as a threat to all life on the planet; others say that at best it’s a threat to human well-being. The latest from the doom-is-everywhere camp came last week from David Suzuki, who likes to float scary scenarios. He’s been a big promoter of the killer-mosquito threat, allegedly brought on as climate warming brings higher temperatures north and creates hospitable climates for disease-carrying bugs. Now he’s found a new threat: killer poison ivy. New research, he says, shows that with higher carbon dioxide levels, “poison ivy did not only grow twice as fast — it became more poisonous.”

For more of this, you can always go drown in the Suzuki Foundation’s Web site. On the other hand, there’s an alternative view of climate change. The fact is that, if the world is warming, we would see many benefits, especially for those who live in the coldest climates. Such as Canada.

Every change in our living conditions creates gains and losses, winners and losers, advantages and disadvantages. Throughout history, people have responded to change like Cassandras or Pollyannas, pessimists or optimists. The use of fear to sway public opinion, coupled with people’s natural aversion to change and media amplification of the problems it brings, has brought us to our current focus on the negatives, the problems and the disadvantages of global warming.

Scientists have noticed and discussed climate change, and then fear-mongers have magnified it into a threat. The possibility of global warming is a classic example. Here’s the conclusion of journalist Don Philpott, author of “Global Warming: How Serious Is The Threat?“, a paper published in January: “Global heating threatens our health, with the elderly, young and poor particularly at risk. It threatens our ability to grow crops and store them safely. It opens the door to a fearsome spread of diseases; it threatens drinking-water supplies and air quality.”

Sounds fearsome, doesn’t it? My response is, “Thank goodness for global warming.” Just 20,000 years ago, Canada was under a massive ice sheet, two kilometres thick in the Hudson Bay region. Just 300 years ago, a Little Ice Age would have precluded agriculture as practiced in Canada today. In fact, just 30 years ago, global cooling was the scientific consensus, transmitted to the public by the same transmission belt, the popular press.

We were told in 1976 by libertarian radio host Lowell Ponte in his book The Cooling: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, and that event caused a 1C drop in global temperature in 1992, resulting in a late, poor harvest in Canada and close to no harvest at all. Cooling is a much greater problem for Canadians.

What happened in Canada as it emerged from under the ice? Fifteen thousand years ago, flora and fauna quickly moved in. In more recent times, the treeline has moved north an average of 200 kilometres in northern Manitoba since the nadir of the little Ice Age, a period of global cooling that followed what’s called the “medieval climate optimum.” That’s about one kilometre per year. Aboriginal people moved north to capture the opportunities provided by warming 6,000 and again 1,000 years ago. Contrary to what you hear, historic evidence shows that warming offers plants, animals and people greater chances for development and survival.

In warmer times, Queen Elizabeth I had a geopolitical goal of controlling the north Atlantic and north Pacific by dominating the Northwest Passage and Arctic waters. Several people, especially Frobisher in the east and Drake in the west (see Sam Bawlf’s book The Secret Voyage of Sir Francis Drake) were looking to establish settlements at each end. Elizabeth was a leader with vision.

A later comment on the potential of the north came from the Royal Society in 1817: “New sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”

Canada is one of the few countries with access to three oceans. As we evolved as a nation, the focus shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. That left the centre essentially landlocked. But this will change if global warming occurs as predicted by the doomsayers. Access to the Arctic Ocean as ice conditions ameliorate and temperatures increase will open another door to the world.

Ironically, for 200 years most western development and settlement came through the ports at York Factory and Churchill. The plan for a Hudson Bay route — by the trading company, now a retailer, bearing the same name — tried to continue this pattern, but essentially failed because of political domination by the east and a three-month limit to the shipping season by insurance companies. With icebreaker support, new cargo vessels and better insurance, the current shipping season could be extended to five or six months. Predicted warming would extend this even more. Commerce is shorter and more direct because great-circle routes put Arctic and Hudson Bay ports closer to Europe and Asia.

Just a brief list of the benefits to our coldest province, Manitoba, and the coldest city, Winnipeg, illustrates the positive potential of global warming:

– Reduced heating costs.

– Reduced fuel bills for travel.

– A longer growing season, allowing a greater variety of crops.

– Less frost damage and crop loss.

– A greater variety of plants for gardens and other uses.

– More rapidly growing forests and an increased rate of reforestation.

– Less frost damage to streets and roads.

– The potential for direct access to world markets through northern ports.

– Reduced construction costs in an ameliorated climate.

– A longer summer season for tourism, and for cottagers and campers.

As for mosquitoes, Winnipeggers at least have been dealing with the pesky bugs since long before David Suzuki even heard of global warming.

A warmer Canada would improve our lives in these and other ways too numerous to list. Global warming? Let’s hope so.

 Posted by at 15:36
Apr 062015
 
Why You Might Want to Rethink Going Gluten-Free

Going gluten-free is all the rage these days. It’s the diet of choice for Hollywood starlets and health nuts alike; supermarket aisles are packed full of products touting their lack of the stretchy protein. But for a lot of people, the gluten-free lifestyle may do more harm than good.

What Is Gluten?

Gluten is a sticky, stretchable protein found in grains like wheat, barley, oats, and rye. Formed during the kneading process, gluten chains create a matrix that trap carbon dioxide bubbles produced by the fermenting yeast. This gives bread its chewiness, pizza dough its stretchiness, and acts as a thickening agent in dozens of products from salad dressing to soy sauce. Even beer contains a fair amount.

Gluten is a relatively new addition to the human diet. For a large portion of our species’ evolution, humans subsisted primarily on animal protein supplemented with fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds. It wasn’t until the start of the Neolithic era—around 9500 BC—and the transition to agriculture that we began consuming carbohydrates and gluten in the form of grains. In evolutionary terms, we might as well have started yesterday. Just as our teeth are still built for tearing through meat and plants rather than processed flour, our digestive system has not yet fully adapted to adequately handle complex carbohydrates (the same goes for bovine lactose—milk) and lacks the ability to fully break down gluten molecules into its component amino acids.

For most people, this is no big deal. Even though the body doesn’t fully process the gluten or lactose, no harm comes of it and we’re no worse for wear. However for the one in seven Americans that suffers from a sensitivity to gluten, consuming it can lead to severe intestinal distress.

And even that discomfort is a walk in the park compared to what happens when someone who suffers from celiac disease—full blown gluten intolerance—eats the stuff. For them, any amount of the protein will trigger a massive autoimmune response within the gut as the body’s defenses attack gliadin, a glycoprotein found in gluten. Unfortunately, this response also damages the villi of the small intestine (villi are the tiny structures that absorb nutrients from digesting food) which, if left untreated, can result in symptoms ranging from diarrhea, bloating, and abdominal pain to Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), intestinal ulcers, intestinal cancer, and a host of nutrient deficiencies.

Once regarded as an rare digestive malady afflicting maybe 1 in 10,000 people worldwide, celiac disease is now considered one of the most common genetic disorders in the western world by the Center for Celiac Disease Research at the University of Maryland. According to a 2003 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine celiac disease affects an estimated 1 in 133 people in America alone. Being a hereditary disorder, celiac disease runs in the family. Your chances of being diagnosed with it jump from 1 in 133 to 1 in 39 if a cousin, aunt, or uncle has it; 1 in 22 if a member of your immediate family does. Interestingly, celiac disease is far less common for Americans of African, Hispanic, and Asian descent—just 1 in 236. What’s more, this disease has shown a marked propensity to occur in combination with lactose intolerance, as well as with type 1 diabetes.

Why You Might Want to Rethink Going Gluten-Free

Not Just Another Atkins Diet

Where there is a disease, there is a marketing opportunity. As celiac disease has gained notoriety, an increasing number of people have begun self-diagnosing as gluten sensitive, and consequently have adopted gluten-free lifestyles. It’s also been touted as a new-age cure-all for a number of maladies including migraines and fibromyalgia, though there is little scientific data to support such claims. Going gluten-free, unless recommended by a physician, is a bad call according to Carol M. Shilson, executive director of the Center for Celiac Disease Research.

“There’s no scientific evidence that it’s better for you if you don’t have celiac disease,” Shilson told the Journal Sentinel. In fact, given the difficulty our bodies have digesting gluten as it is, “it’s very hard to go back to a regular diet” after any prolonged lapse in its consumption. Heck, just eliminating gluten in the first place is a challenge given its ubiquitous use as a thickening agent. Consequently, much of the weight-loss benefit brought on by giving up gluten is due to the severely restrictive diet one must follow.

As Mark DeMeo, M.D., director of gastroenterology and nutrition at the Adult Celiac Disease Program at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago told Women’s Health, “there’s nothing magical about a gluten-free diet that’s going to help you lose weight.”

In fact, doing so can have the opposite effect. As Shelley Case, R.D., author of Gluten-Free Diet: A Comprehensive Resource Guide and a medical advisory board member for the Celiac Disease Foundation, explained to Women’s Health, without gluten to hold baked goods together, food manufacturers will often use fats and sugar instead.

That means, Case continued, going gluten-free can potentially increase your risk of developing a micro-nutrient deficiency, especially if you rely on hyper-processed and fat/sugar-packed, packaged foods rather than the nutritionally stable and vitamin-packed fresh fruits, vegetables, and gluten-free grains (like quinoa) you should be eating anyway.

While there is no reliable means of testing for a gluten sensitivity, a simple blood test can determine whether or not someone suffers from celiac disease by identifying specific anti-gluten antibodies.

“Because it is a lifelong genetic disease that can be passed on, it’s important to get a proper diagnosis,” Shilson said. “And you have to be eating a regular diet (with gluten) or all the diagnostic tests will be rendered invalid.” And even if the results come back positive, an intestinal biopsy may be first necessary to confirm it. So before you start stocking up on quinoa, make sure to talk to your doctor. And unless your body has a genuine sensitivity, think about limiting your glutens instead of replacing them with stuff that’s even worse.

[WikiJS OnlineCenter for Celiac Treatment and ResearchWomen’s HealthMNNNFCAImages: ChameleonsEyejoannawnukfarbled]

Nov 292013
 

The Dangers of Going Gluten-Free

Cathy Gulli in MacLeans points out the danger of using the internet as a source of information about gluten and gluten-free. Even the author of Wheat Belly is a bit worried.

The Facts and Dangers about Going Gluten-Free

There are some who have celiac disease where this is necessary and a few who only have a “sensitivity” to gluten in products. But the gluten-free craze can cause a lot of problems for those who who have bought into the internet craze instead of being tested to see if a gluten-free diet is really necessary.

From the Wikipedia

Gluten-free diet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Further information: The oat controversy and Oat sensitivity

A gluten-free diet (GF diet) is a diet that excludes foods containing gluten. Gluten is a protein complex found in wheat (including kamut and spelt), barley, rye and triticale. A gluten-free diet is the only medically accepted treatment for celiac disease.[1] Being gluten intolerant can often mean a person may also be wheat intolerant as well as suffer from the related inflammatory skin condition dermatitis herpetiformis,[2] There are a smaller minority of people who suffer from wheat intolerance alone and are tolerant to gluten.

“Despite the health claims for gluten-free eating, there is no published experimental evidence to support such claims for the general population.”[3][4] A significant demand has developed for gluten-free food in the United States whether it is needed or not.[5]

A gluten-free diet might also exclude oats. Medical practitioners are divided on whether oats are acceptable to celiac disease sufferers[6] or whether they become cross-contaminated in milling facilities by other grains.[7] Oats may also be contaminated when grown in rotation with wheat when wheat seeds from the previous harvest sprout up the next season in the oat field and are harvested along with the oats.

The exact level at which gluten is harmless for people with celiac disease is uncertain. A 2008 systematic review tentatively concluded that consumption of less than 10 mg of gluten per day for celiac disease patients is unlikely to cause histological abnormalities, although it noted that few reliable studies had been conducted.[8]

Gluten-free food

Gluten-free food is normally seen as a diet for celiac disease, but people with a gluten allergy (an unrelated disease) should also avoid wheat and related grains.

Quinoa is a grain that is gluten-free

Several grains and starch sources are considered acceptable for a gluten-free diet. The most frequently used are corn, potatoes, rice, and tapioca (derived from cassava). Other grains and starch sources generally considered suitable for gluten-free diets include amaranth, arrowroot, millet, montina, lupin, quinoa, sorghum (jowar), taro, teff, chia seed, almond meal flour, coconut flour, pea flour, cornstarch and yam. Sometimes various types of bean, soybean, and nut flours are used in gluten-free products to add protein and dietary fiber.

Almond flour has a low glycemic index. In spite of its name, buckwheat is not related to wheat. Pure buckwheat is considered acceptable for a gluten-free diet, however, many commercial buckwheat products are mixtures of wheat and buckwheat flours, and thus, not gluten-free. Gram flour, derived from chickpeas, also is gluten-free (this is not the same as Graham flour made from wheat).

Gluten may be used in foods in some unexpected ways, for example it may be added as a stabilizing agent or thickener in products such as ice-cream and ketchup.[9][10]

Cross-contamination issues

A gluten-free diet allows for fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, and many dairy products. The diet allows rice, corn, soy, potato, tapioca, beans, sorghum, quinoa, millet, pure buckwheat, arrowroot, amaranth, teff, Montina, and nut flours and the diet prohibits the ingestion of wheat, barley, rye, and related components, including triticale, durum, graham, kamut, semolina, spelt, malt, malt flavouring, or malt vinegar.[11]

In the United States, the FDA considers foods containing less than or equal to 20 ppm to be gluten-free,[12] but there is no regulation or law in the U.S. for labeling foods as ‘gluten-free’. The finding of a current study indicates that some inherently gluten-free grains, seed, and flours not labeled gluten-free are contaminated with gluten. The consumption of these products can lead to inadvertent gluten intake.[13] The use of highly sensitive assays is mandatory to certify gluten-free food products. The European Union, World Health Organization, and Codex Alimentarius require reliable measurement of the wheat prolamins, gliadins rather than all-wheat proteins.[14]

There still is no general agreement on the analytical method used to measure gluten in ingredients and food products.[15] The official limits described in the Codex Draft are 20 ppm for foodstuffs that are considered naturally gluten-free and 200 ppm for foodstuffs rendered gluten-free.[16] The ELISA method was designed to detect w-gliadins, but it suffered from the setback that it lacked sensitivity for barley prolamins.[17]

Cross-contamination problems

A growing body of evidence suggests that a majority of people with celiac disease and following a gluten-free diet can safely consume pure oats in moderate amounts.

Special care is necessary when checking product ingredient lists since gluten comes in many forms: vegetable proteins and starch, modified food starch (when derived from wheat instead of maize), malt flavoring, unless specifically labeled as corn malt. Many ingredients contain wheat or barley derivatives. Maltodextrin is gluten-free, however, since it is highly modified, no matter what the source.[18]

Oats

Further information: The oat controversy and Oat sensitivity

Oat grains in their husks

The suitability of oats in the gluten-free diet is still somewhat controversial. Some research suggests that oats in themselves are gluten-free, but that they are virtually always contaminated by other grains during distribution or processing. Recent research,[19] however, indicated that a protein naturally found in oats (avenin) possessed peptide sequences closely resembling wheat gluten and caused mucosal inflammation in significant numbers of celiac disease sufferers. Some examination results show that even oats that are not contaminated with wheat particles are nonetheless dangerous, while not very harmful to the majority. Such oats are generally considered risky for children with celiac disease to eat, but two studies show that they are completely safe for adults with celiac disease to eat.

People who merely are “gluten-sensitive” may be able to eat oats without adverse effect,[20] even over a period of five years.[21] Given this conflicting information, excluding oats appears to be the only risk-free practice for celiac disease sufferers of all ages,[22] however, medically approved guidelines exist for those with celiac disease who do wish to introduce oats into their diet.[23]

Unless manufactured in a dedicated facility and under gluten-free practices, all cereal grains, including oats, may be cross-contaminated with gluten. Grains become contaminated with gluten by sharing the same farm, truck, mill, or bagging facility as wheat and other gluten-containing grains.

Alcoholic beverages

Several celiac disease groups report that according to the American Dietetic Association‘s “Manual of Clinical Dietetics”,[24][25] many types of alcoholic beverages are considered gluten-free, provided no colourings or other additives have been added as these ingredients may contain gluten. Although most forms of whiskey are distilled from a mash that includes grains that contain gluten, distillation removes any proteins present in the mash, including gluten. Although up to 49% of the mash for Bourbon and up to 20% of the mash for corn whiskey may be made up of wheat, or rye, all-corn Bourbons and corn whiskeys do exist, and are generally labeled as such. Spirits made without any grain such as brandy, wine, mead, cider, sherry, port, rum, tequila, and vermouth generally do not contain gluten. While some vineyards use a flour paste to caulk the oak barrels in which wine is aged,[26] tests have shown that no detectable amounts of gluten are present in the wine from those barrels.[27] A small number of vineyards have also used gluten as a clarifying agent, though it is not the standard process; some studies have shown small amounts of gluten to remain in the wine after clarification.[28] Therefore, some people with Celiac or strong gluten sensitivity may wish to exercise caution. Liqueurs and pre-mixed drinks should be examined carefully for gluten-derived ingredients.

Almost all beers are brewed with malted barley or wheat and will contain gluten. Sorghum and buckwheat-based gluten-free beers are available, but remain a niche market. Some low-gluten beers are also available, however, there is disagreement over the use of gluten products in brewed beverages: Some brewers argue that in certain beers the proteins from such grains as barley or wheat are converted into amino acids during the clarification step of the brewing process and are therefore gluten-free,[29] although there is evidence that this protein degradation is only partial.[30] The Swedish government agency Livsmedelsverket carried out a study of the gluten content in a wide range of beers in 2005 and found that the majority of the beers tested contained less than 200 ppm gluten, with several brands containing less than 20 ppm.[31] However, they also found that many beers have extremely high levels of gluten so, if unsure, coeliacs are advised to avoid beer.

Gluten-free bread

Bread, which is a staple in most diets, typically is made from grains such as wheat that contain gluten. Wheat gluten contributes to the elasticity of dough and is thus an important component of bread. Gluten-free bread is made with ground flours from a variety of materials such as almonds, rice (rice bread), sorghum (sorghum bread), corn (cornbread), or legumes such as beans (bean bread), but since these flours lack gluten it can be difficult for them to retain their shape as they rise and they may be less “fluffy”. Additives such as xanthum gum, guar gum, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), corn starch, or eggs are used to compensate for the lack of gluten.[32]

“Gluten-free” labels

Sausages may contain gluten via fillers or binders such as Butcher’s Rusk

Standards for “gluten-free” labelling have been set up by the “Codex Alimentarius“; however, these regulations fluctuate from one Country to the next. If from within Canada; check with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for all regulatory procedures for labels and allowed amount of gluten.”.[33]

The legal definition of the phrase “gluten-free” varies from country to country. Current research suggests that for persons with celiac disease the maximum safe level of gluten in a finished product is probably less than 0.02% (200 parts per million) and possibly as little as 0.002% (20 parts per million).[citation needed]

Australian standards reserve the “gluten-free” label for foods with less than 5 parts per million of gluten.[citation needed] In the processing of gluten-containing grains, gluten is removed (shown in the processing flow below)

Wheat Flour (80,000ppm) > Wheat Starch (200ppm) > Dextrin > Maltodextrin > Glucose Syrup (<5ppm) > Dextrose > Caramel Color

Since ordinary wheat flour contains approximately 12% gluten,[34] even a tiny amount of wheat flour can cross-contaminate a gluten-free product, therefore, considerable care must be taken to prevent cross-contamination in both commercial and home food preparation.

A gluten-free diet rules out all ordinary breads, pastas, and many convenience foods; it also excludes gravies, custards, soups, and sauces thickened with wheat, rye, barley, or other gluten-containing flour. Many countries do not require labeling of gluten containing products, but in several countries (especially Australia and the European Union) new product labeling standards are enforcing the labeling of gluten-containing ingredients. Various gluten-free bakery and pasta products are available from specialty retailers.

In the United States, gluten may not be listed on the labels of certain foods because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has classified gluten as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe).[35]

Many so-called gluten-free products, such as chicken bouillon, corn cereal, and caramel ice cream topping, have been found to have been contaminated with gluten.[36] For example, in an investigation reported by the Chicago Tribune on November 21, 2008, Wellshire Farms chicken nuggets labeled “gluten-free” were purchased from a Whole Foods Market and samples were sent to a food allergy laboratory at the University of Nebraska.[37] Results of the testing indicated gluten was present in levels exceeding 2,000 ppm. After the article was published, the products continued to be sold. After receiving customer inquiries, however, more than a month later, the Whole Foods Market removed the product from their shelves. Wellshire Farms has since replaced the batter used in their chicken nuggets.[38]

In the United Kingdom, only cereals currently need to be labeled regarding gluten, while other products are voluntary.[39] For example, most British sausages contain Butcher’s Rusk, a grain-derived food additive.[40] Furthermore, while UK companies selling food prepared on their own premises are given guidance by the Food Standards Agency, they are not required to meet any labeling requirements.[41]

Lastly, some non-foodstuffs such as medications and vitamin supplements, especially those in tablet form, may contain gluten as an excipient or binding agent.[42][43] People with gluten intolerances may therefore require specialist compounding of their medication.[34]

Regulations

In commerce, the term gluten-free generally is used to indicate a tolerable level of gluten rather than a complete absence.[8]

The current international Codex Alimentarius standard allows for 20 parts per million of gluten in so-called “gluten-free” foods.[44] Such a standard also reflects “the lowest level that can be consistently detected in foods.”[45]

Regulation of the label gluten-free varies. In the United States, the FDA issued regulations in 2013 limiting the use of “gluten-free” labels for food products to those with less than 20 parts per million of gluten.[45][46][47]

Popularity and nonceliac health effects

Gluten-free fad diets have become popular. This may be because celiac disease was underdiagnosed and also that people are “unnecessarily turning to the diets as a food fad”. There also appears to be an increased incidence of celiac disease, with one study which looked for antibodies from 1950s American blood samples finding that celiac disease is about four times as common as it was.[48] Many are adopting gluten-free diets to treat celiac disease-like symptoms in the absence of a positive test for celiac disease.

A 2011 panel of celiac experts concluded that there is a condition related to gluten other than celiac disease and named it “non-celiac gluten sensitivity“.[49] However, for those without celiac disease or gluten sensitivity, the diet is unnecessary.[50][51] There are a wide variety of names which have been used in medical literature for gluten-related disorders which are different from celiac disease. Some of them are confusing and ambiguous. “Non-celiac gluten sensitivity” is the recommended umbrella term for conditions where symptoms different from celiac disease result from ingestion of gluten.[52]

Despite some advocacy, evidence of the diet’s efficacy as an autism treatment is poor.[53] Despite vigorous marketing, a variety of studies, including a study by the University of Rochester, found that the popular autism diet does not demonstrate behavioral improvement and fails to show any genuine benefit to children diagnosed with autism who do not also have a known digestive condition which benefits from a gluten-free diet.[54]

Deficiencies linked to maintaining a gluten-free diet

Many gluten-free products are not fortified or enriched by such nutrients as folate, iron, and fiber as traditional breads and cereals have been during the last century.[55] Additionally, because gluten-free products are not always available, many Gluten-Sensitive Enteropathy (GSE) patients do not consume the recommended number of grain servings per day. People who change their standard gluten-free diet to implement gluten-free oats at breakfast, high fiber brown rice bread at lunch, and quinoa as a side at dinner have been found to have significant increases in protein (20.6 g versus 11 g), iron (18.4 mg versus 1.4 mg), calcium (182 mg versus 0 mg), and fiber (12.7 g versus 5 g). The B vitamin group did not have significant increases, but were still found to have improved values of thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, and folate.[56] These dietary changes can greatly reduce a GSE patient’s risk for anemia (especially Iron Deficiency Anemia) and low blood calcium levels or poor bone health.

Oats can increase intakes of vitamin B1, magnesium, and zinc in celiac disease patients in remission.[57]

See also

General:

References

  1. Jump up ^ Hischenhuber, C.; Crevel, R.; Jarry, B.; Maki, M.; Moneret-Vautrin, D. A.; Romano, A.; Troncone, R.; Ward, R. (2006). “Review article: safe amounts of gluten for patients with wheat allergy or coeliac disease”. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 23 (5): 559–575. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02768.x. PMID 16480395.
  2. Jump up ^ “Coeliac Disease”. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health. 2008.
  3. Jump up ^ Gaesser, G. A.; Angadi, S. S. (2012). “Gluten-Free Diet: Imprudent Dietary Advice for the General Population?”. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 112 (9): 1330–1333. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2012.06.009. PMID 22939437.
  4. Jump up ^ De Palma, Giada; Inmaculada Nadal, Maria Carmen Collado and Yolanda Sanz (2009). “Effects of a gluten-free diet on gut microbiota and immune function in healthy adult human subjects”. British Journal of Nutrition 102: 1154–1160. doi:10.1017/S0007114509371767. Retrieved 25 July 2013.
  5. Jump up ^ Kenneth Chang (February 4, 2013). “Gluten-Free, Whether You Need It or Not” (“Well” blog by expert journalist). The New York Times. Retrieved February 5, 2013. “The definition is less a diagnosis than a description — someone who does not have celiac, but whose health improves on a gluten-free diet and worsens again if gluten is eaten. It could even be more than one illness.”
  6. Jump up ^ N Y Haboubi, S Taylor, S Jones (2006). “Celiac disease and oats: a systematic review”. The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine.
  7. Jump up ^ “The Gluten-Free Diet” – CeliacSociety.com
  8. ^ Jump up to: a b Akobeng AK, Thomas AG (June 2008). “Systematic review: tolerable amount of gluten for people with coeliac disease”. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 27 (11): 1044–52. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03669.x. PMID 18315587.
  9. Jump up ^ Pat Kendall, Ph.D., R.D. (March 31, 2003). “Gluten sensitivity more widespread than previously thought”. Colorado State University Extension.
  10. Jump up ^ “Following a Gluten-free Diet”. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. A Harvard teaching hospital.
  11. Jump up ^ American Dietetic Association: Hot topics: gluten-free diets www.eatright.org/search.aspx? Dec. 2009
  12. Jump up ^ http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuidanceRegulatoryInformation/Topic-SpecificLabelingInformation/ucm265309.htm
  13. Jump up ^ Journal of the American Dietetic Association. June 2010;939
  14. Jump up ^ Codex Alimentarius (2003) Draft revised standards for gluten-free foods, report of the 25th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, November 2003
  15. Jump up ^ Hischenhuber C, Crevel R, Jarry B, Makai M, Moneret-Vautrin DA, Romano A, Troncone R, Ward R (2006) Review article: safe amounts of gluten for patients with wheat allergy or coeliac disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 23(5):5590575
  16. Jump up ^ Bermudo Redondo, M. C.; Griffin, P. B.; Garzon Ransanz, M.; Ellis, H. J.; Ciclitira, P. J.; O’Sullivan, C. K. (2005). “Monoclonal antibody-based competitive assay for the sensitive detection of coeliac disease toxic prolamins”. Analytica Chimica Acta 551: 105. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2005.07.023.
  17. Jump up ^ Poms, R. E.; Klein, C. L.; Anklam, E. (2004). “Methods for allergen analysis in food: A review”. Food Additives and Contaminants 21 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1080/02652030310001620423. PMID 14744677.
  18. Jump up ^ Ingredients “Gluten Free Living”. Retrieved August 31, 2009.
  19. Jump up ^ Arentz-Hansen, Helene; Burkhard Fleckenstein; Øyvind Molberg; Helge Scott; Frits Koning; Günther Jung; Peter Roepstorff; Knut E. A. Lundin; Ludvig M. Sollid (October 19, 2004). “The Molecular Basis for Oat Intolerance in Patients with Coeliac Disease”. PLoS Medicine (PLoS Medicine) 1 (1): e1. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0010001. PMC 523824. PMID 15526039. Retrieved July 22, 2006.
  20. Jump up ^ Størsrud, S; M Olsson; R Avidsson Lenner; L Å Nilsson; O Nilsson; A Kilander (May 7, 2002). “Adult celiac patients do tolerate large amounts of oats”. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 57 (1). doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601525. PMID 12548312. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
  21. Jump up ^ Janatuinen, E K; T A Kemppainen; R J K Julkunen; V-M Kosma; M Mäki; M Heikkinen; M I J Uusitupa (May 1, 2002). “No harm from five year ingestion of oats in celiac disease”. GUT Journal Online. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
  22. Jump up ^ “The Scoop on Oats”. Celiac Sprue Association (CSA). February 20, 2008.
  23. Jump up ^ Mohsid, Rashid (June 8, 2007). “Guidelines for Consumption of Pure and Uncontaminated Oats by Individuals with Coeliac Disease”. Professional Advisory Board of Canadian Coeliac Association. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
  24. Jump up ^ “ADA Publishes Revised GF Diet Guidelines”
  25. Jump up ^ “Which alcoholic beverages are safe?” Celiac.com
  26. Jump up ^ StaVin Barrel Inserts Inc. [1] Retrieved May 18, 2009
  27. Jump up ^ Celiac.com, referencing a study from The Gluten-Free Dietician [2] Retrieved September 29, 2013
  28. Jump up ^ Simonato, Tolin, and Pasini, March 4, 2011 “Immunochemical and Mass Spectrometry Detection of Residual Proteins in Gluten Fined Red Wine,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry [3]
  29. Jump up ^ “Is Beer Gluten-Free and Safe for People with Coeliac Disease?”. Celiac.com. 2006.
  30. Jump up ^ “Improved Methods for Determination of Beer Haze Protein Derived from Malt”. Australian barley technical Symposium. Marian Sheehan A, Evan Evans B, and John Skerritt. 2001.
  31. Jump up ^ Livsmedelsverket. 2005 http://sverigesbryggerier.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ol-ingredienser-gluteninnehall1.pdf |url= missing title (help).
  32. Jump up ^ Schober TJ, Bean SR. Gluten-free baking: what is happening inside the bread? USDA.
  33. Jump up ^ “Codex Standard For “Gluten-Free Foods” CODEX STAN 118-1981″ (PDF). Codex Alimentarius. February 22, 2006.
  34. ^ Jump up to: a b Spersud, Erik and Jennifer (January 3, 2008). Everything You Want To Know About Recipes And Restaurants And Much More. USA: Authorhouse. p. 172. doi:10.1007/b62130. ISBN 978-1-4343-6034-2.
  35. Jump up ^ “Sec. 184.1322 Wheat gluten”. Code of Federal Regulations Center. April 1, 2007.
  36. Jump up ^ Schorr, Melissa (March 22, 2004). “Study: Wheat-Free Foods May Contain Wheat”. WebMD.com. Archived from the original on March 14, 2008. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
  37. Jump up ^ Roe, Sam. “Children at risk in food roulette”. Chicagotribune.com. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
  38. Jump up ^ Roe, Sam. “Whole Foods pulls ‘gluten-free’ products from shelves after Tribune story”. Chicagotribune.com. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
  39. Jump up ^ “Guidance Notes on the Food Labeling (Amendment)(No. 2) Regulations 2004” (PDF). Food Standards Agency. November 2005.
  40. Jump up ^ “Labelling and Composition of Meat Products” (PDF). Food Standards Agency. April 22, 2004. Retrieved February 23, 2008.
  41. Jump up ^ “Food allergy guidance published”. BBC News. January 16, 2008. Retrieved February 24, 2008.
  42. Jump up ^ “Frequently Asked Questions”. IPC Americas Inc. February 27, 2008. Archived from the original on April 11, 2008. Retrieved April 15, 2008.
  43. Jump up ^ “Excipient Ingredients in Medications”. Gluten Free Drugs. November 3, 2007. Retrieved April 15, 2008.
  44. Jump up ^ “Current Official Standards”. FAO/WHO. Retrieved June 26, 2008.
  45. ^ Jump up to: a b “What is Gluten-Free? FDA Has an Answer”. Food and Drug Administration. August 2, 2013. Retrieved 2013-08-02. “As one of the criteria for using the claim ‘gluten-free,’ FDA is setting a gluten limit of less than 20 ppm (parts per million) in foods that carry this label. This is the lowest level that can be consistently detected in foods using valid scientific analytical tools. Also, most people with celiac disease can tolerate foods with very small amounts of gluten. This level is consistent with those set by other countries and international bodies that set food safety standards.”
  46. Jump up ^ Section 206 of the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, Title II of Pub.L. 108–282, 118 Stat. 891 , enacted August 2, 2004
  47. Jump up ^ 72 F.R. 2795-2817
  48. Jump up ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57483789-10391704/gluten-free-diet-fad-are-celiac-disease-rates-actually-rising/
  49. Jump up ^ Gluten-Free, Whether You Need It or Not. NYTimes.
  50. Jump up ^ http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672(12)00743-5/fulltext
  51. Jump up ^ http://westernfarmpress.com/management/gluten-free-fad-not-backed-science
  52. Jump up ^ Jonas F Ludvigsson; Daniel A Leffler, Julio C Bai, Federico Biagi, Alessio Fasano, Peter H R Green, Marios Hadjivassiliou, Katri Kaukinen, Ciaran P Kelly, Jonathan N Leonard, Knut Erik Aslaksen Lundin, Joseph A Murray, David S Sanders, Marjorie M Walker, Fabiana Zingone, Carolina Ciacci (February 16, 2012). “The Oslo definitions for coeliac disease and related terms”. Gut (BMJ and British Society of Gastroenterology) 62 (1): 43–52. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301346. Retrieved February 5, 2013. “CD was defined as ‘a chronic small intestinal immune-mediated enteropathy precipitated by exposure to dietary gluten in genetically predisposed individuals’. Classical CD was defined as ‘CD presenting with signs and symptoms of malabsorption. Diarrhoea, steatorrhoea, weight loss or growth failure is required.’ ‘Gluten-related disorders’ is the suggested umbrella term for all diseases triggered by gluten and the term gluten intolerance should not to be used. Other definitions are presented in the paper.”
  53. Jump up ^ Millward C, Ferriter M, Calver S, Connell-Jones G (2008). “Gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder.”. In Ferriter, Michael. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD003498. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003498.pub3. PMID 18425890.
  54. Jump up ^ “Popular Autism Diet Does Not Demonstrate Behavioral Improvement”.
  55. Jump up ^ “Side Effects of the Gluten-Free Diet”. about.com. 2009.
  56. Jump up ^ Lee AR, Ng DL, Dave E, Ciaccio J, Green PHR (2009). “The effect of substituting alternative grains in the diet on the nutritional profile of the gluten-free diet”. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 22 (4): 359–363. doi:10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00970.x. PMID 19519750.
  57. Jump up ^ Kemppainen, T. A.; Heikkinen, M. T.; Ristikankare, M. K.; Kosma, V. -M.; Julkunen, R. J. (2009). “Nutrient intakes during diets including unkilned and large amounts of oats in celiac disease”. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 64 (1): 62–67. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2009.113. PMID 19756027.

External links