Marketing "Gluten-Free"

[KitchenMom]

Daisy - I know where you are coming from and, with a husband with celiac, have certainly seen first-hand the need for GF products. From that point of view, I'm delighted with the recent surge in availability of GF options. That said, there is no doubt in my mind, the surge is the result of a fad driven by people who don't need a GF diet, or even really understand what it is. I have a co-worker who decided to go GF because she figured it must be "healthier" while clearly having no idea of why, and having no symptoms that would suggest a need. I know people who decided to try to go GF for weight loss (ridiculous, since almost all GF products are much higher in calories than their non-GF equivalents). Believe me, I am happy to take advantage of all the GF products out their, but I know it's a fad that will fade, just like the many other food fads that have come and gone.

[Mjx]

Wasn't the original point of this entire discussion the marketing aspect of gluten-free foods, rather than the validity of people's claims of gluten sensitivity?

I'm not indifferent to this subject of food sensitivities, by the way: I handle many starches poorly--wheat is a real offender--and unless I actively choose to go on wheat/starch bender, I don't want pointless wheat in my food (I don't actually know what the offending element is, since getting tested is out of my price range, but if it is gluten, it is unlikely to be due to celiac disease, since the problems aren't of a digestive nature).

Still, for the majority of people, gluten is not an issue, and for marketers to push the idea that gluten-free food is implicitly healthier, regardless of whether you are sensitive to it, is misleading and unethical (after all, something without gluten in it can still have plenty of other things in it that aren't that great, from insane amounts of sugar, to chemical contaminants and the random rat dropping).

Edited March 6, 2011 by Mjx (log)

[FoodMan]

Wasn't the original point of this entire discussion the marketing aspect of gluten-free foods, rather than the validity of people's claims of gluten sensitivity?

Exactly. I am not sure anyone is saying that foods should not be labeled "Gluten-Free". The marketing bit we are mostly taken issue with is very well illustrated by KitchenMom's comment about her coworker. I do not mind seeing "Gluten-Free" on a baked good or packaged food, but I do mind (well more like get annoyed) by being offered a "Gluten-Free" aka "healthy" option wherever I go. If I want a GF option I'll ask for it. Another example, apparently (per a podcast I was listening to today - Adam Carolla's to be specific) Rebecca Romijn is now on a gluten-free diet and is enforcing it on her husband (Jerry O' connell- who was telling the story) and her 3-year old twins. No, she has no digestive problems whatsoever according to Mr. O'Connell and he has no clue why she is doing that! I hope she will not be sponsoring an infomercial about it soon.

[gfweb]

Wasn't the original point of this entire discussion the marketing aspect of gluten-free foods, rather than the validity of people's claims of gluten sensitivity?

I'm not indifferent to this subject of food sensitivities, by the way: I handle many starches poorly--wheat is a real offender--and unless I actively choose to go on wheat/starch bender, I don't want pointless wheat in my food (I don't actually know what the offending element is, since getting tested is out of my price range, but if it is gluten, it is unlikely to be due to celiac disease, since the problems aren't of a digestive nature).

Still, for the majority of people, gluten is not an issue, and for marketers to push the idea that gluten-free food is implicitly healthier, regardless of whether you are sensitive to it, is misleading and unethical (after all, something without gluten in it can still have plenty of other things in it that aren't that great, from insane amounts of sugar, to chemical contaminants and the random rat dropping).

Exactly. Wheat gluten is bad for a few, but fine for most.

There is so much nutritional twaddle out there that the true and important things get lost in the sea of supposition and pseudoscience. For example there are a number of websites saying that glutamate is bad for the gluten-sensitive population. Nonsense! The only similarity between the two is in their spelling.

[Smithy]

This brought me up short in the grocery store today.

 

[Ddanno]

Staff note: This post and responses to it have been split from the Food Funnies dicussion, to maintain topic focus.  

 

 

On 6/22/2025 at 4:22 AM, Smithy said:

This brought me up short in the grocery store today.

 

A few YouTubers were promoting this misnomer a year or so back.

 

I dread to imagine what it's made of - I'm not a fan of breakfast cereal anyway, so cereal with no cereals feels like one step closer to soylent green to me.

[blue_dolphin]

14 minutes ago, Smithy said:

This brought me up short in the grocery store today.

 

Rather an oxymoron, isn’t it? I recall this stuff being quite popular among gluten-phobic*  influencers craving the sugary cereals they grew up with.  
 

* I’m not referring to anyone dealing with celiac disease or other serious gluten-sensitivity issues.  

[Kerry Beal]

Grainless granola seems to be available from a variety of vendors - TJ's has a nice one. Avoids the oxymoron issue. Purchased for someone who has IBS and needs to avoid the wheat (but not the gluten) - but I notice the ingredients include inulin which may just mean that it's not going to be suitable.