The Trouble With "Gluten Friendly"
It's not actually friendly to celiacs
There’s always a new trend coming down the line. Some of them are terrific (ooh, leopard print is back!) and others wear out their welcome pretty fast (bye, barrel-leg jeans). But trends aren’t limited to fashion. Restaurants are just as likely to follow them, and there’s one I’ve seen on the rise this year: eateries with “gluten friendly” menus.
Not only is the name kind of dumb (technically, something “gluten friendly” would be pro-gluten, the way a “kid friendly” meal is one intended for kids), but it’s also devoid of legal meaning. That’s the big difference between gluten free and gluten friendly. In the US, Canada, and much of Europe, “gluten free” has a distinct legal meaning: it guarantees a level of gluten content that is below 20 ppm (parts per million). That’s the level of gluten contamination that health regulatory bodies in many countries have established as a safe threshold for people with celiac disease.
Since gluten friendly has no legal definition, it means whatever a restaurant wants it to mean. Are there traces of gluten? Cross-contamination issues? Maybe! Only the restaurant in questions knows, and they’re not making any guarantees. There’s a restaurant in my neighborhood that offers gluten-friendly items on the menu, but also has fine print that reads “These items are not suitable for celiacs.” At least they’re being honest.
You might be wondering, who is gluten friendly for, if not celiacs? According to the National Institutes of Health, in the US, 1% of the population has celiac disease, but 6% of the population has non-celiac gluten sensitivity. For that 6%, gluten cross-contamination is not considered a health concern.
I fear this trend is growing for a couple of reasons. One is that it’s a lot less work to cater to people with gluten sensitivity. Also, it’s low-risk compared to serving celiacs. There’s been a rise in lawsuits over the past few years. You’ve probably heard about the guy who sued a Las Vegas restaurant for $100,000 for allegedly glutening him. (I have questions.) Restaurants have also been sued in the US for charging more for gluten-free meals. Last December, KLM was accused of glutening a passenger, who became violently ill and had to be carried off the plane on a stretcher. (In the spirt of full disclosure, let me just say that this passenger’s symptoms sound *exactly* like mine the time I got violently ill on a flight — only it wasn’t from being glutened, it was from norovirus.)
My instinct is to avoid restaurants with gluten-friendly menus, but I know that’s not always an option. Still, I’m hoping that this is a trend that will vanish soon. In the meantime, celiac friends, be cautious with anything marked gluten friendly.
If you enjoyed this post, please click the “like” button below — that helps others discover my content.❤️
Ugh, that makes me so mad! I've also seen the term "gluten-sensitive menu" used more now as well. It seems like restaurants in the US do not want to do the work to accommodate guests with true medical dietary restrictions.
As someone with non-celiac gluten sensitivity, I wouldn’t feel comfortable eating at a “gluten friendly” restaurant. My intolerance is severe enough that it appears on every level except antibodies to be celiac, and I absolutely do not feel like risking my health for weeks by eating once at a careless restaurant. I know the health repercussions aren’t nearly as severe as a true celiac’s, but even sensitivity can be severe. I suspect “gluten friendly” is primarily geared toward those (crazy) people who choose gluten free without any sort of sensitivity. From my experience, those people ruin the general perception of gluten intolerants and celiacs; people seem inclined to take a legitimate health issue less seriously because they’re desensitized by all the people who choose the lifestyle without any necessity.