Is there any way to avoid hidden animal products?

[MonkeySage]

I never knew until becoming a vegetarian roughly 9 years ago that a handful of people seem to passionately and irrationally despise vegetarians and vegans for their dietary choices, and it seems I'm still learning something new about it. Case in point: Hidden animal products, a lot of them behind the label of "natural flavors" or "natural dyes" or something like that.

I've known from the beginning that I'd need to do my research on this sort of thing, and that reading the labels wouldn't cut it. There's always room for improvement though... I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian. :smalltongue:

[Xuc Xac]

Those "natural flavors" and "natural colors" on the food labels aren't phrased that way to hide animal parts from vegetarians. The food companies do it to hide disgusting animal parts from everybody. Not even the most enthusiastic meat eater thinks "beaver anal gland extract" or "crushed beetle juice" sounds appealing.

[Fyraltari]

I don’t know how common a legal obligation that is but don’t the process foods you buy have lists of the ingredients used in them? Then provided you know which colorants and other additives have an animal origin (maybe keep a list with you when you go grocery shopping?) you can avoid products that don’t meet your criteria.

[Yanagi]

I never knew until becoming a vegetarian roughly 9 years ago that a handful of people seem to passionately and irrationally despise vegetarians and vegans for their dietary choices, and it seems I'm still learning something new about it. Case in point: Hidden animal products, a lot of them behind the label of "natural flavors" or "natural dyes" or something like that.

I've known from the beginning that I'd need to do my research on this sort of thing, and that reading the labels wouldn't cut it. There's always room for improvement though... I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian. :smalltongue:

There's a point where the only way is to know animal products with names that belie that origin--since they're chemically altered, their origin is no longer marked by their name--and start knowing what's in processed food such that you can make a reasonable guess about where additives would be used.

There are multiple internet guides of vegetarians that provide lists of common ones. Here's an American one that marks things vegan, vegetarian, and non-veg. (https://www.vrg.org/ingredients/) Here's an Australian one that includes their codes #s. (https://vegvic.org.au/food-additives/)

There's two tricky parts:

One, some ingredients like glycerin (and glycerin derivatives) and lecithin can come from vegetable or animal sources.

Two, at some point you just have to make a judgement call, because animal byproducts are used to construct artificial flavors and texturizers through alteration of the base molecule, and tracking down what the derivative was built from could become endless and fruitless.

If you're ovo-lacto a bunch of common additives are just isolates from egg white, egg yolks, and the various stages between milk and cheese. Your big enemy will be gelatin and gelatin derivatives plus the texturizer oleaic acid (an emulsifier, and thus in spreadable colloids).

Cochineal/carmine is smashed bug excretions, but not nearly as many products use it as they used to. Castoreum is derived from beaver anal glands...but basically nobody uses it for conventional processed food because it's expensive compared to fully synthetic flavors. Things that do use castoreum tend to sell that old-timey authenticity. Ditto isinglass as a beer clarifier: it's mighty rare unless you are around Belgian monks or homebrewing ultra-hipsters that grow their own hops.

[factotum]

Not even the most enthusiastic meat eater thinks "beaver anal gland extract" or "crushed beetle juice" sounds appealing.

Weird thing is, I've known red food colouring (aka cochineal) is made from beetles since I was about 9...never really bothered me.

[snowblizz]

Weird thing is, I've known red food colouring (aka cochineal) is made from beetles since I was about 9...never really bothered me.

Also very few foods are actually going to contain anything that has ever seen a bug. Most food-additives are going to be synthetically made because that's several times cheaper.

Basically "you are eating bugs" are what annoying vegans tell other people to be all smug and such.



a handful of people seem to passionately and irrationally despise vegetarians and vegans for their dietary choices,

It's not irrational. We got reasons. Vegans can be very very very, VERY annoying about their dietary choices.

I believe the answer to the question is : "stop eating any and all kinds of processed food".

[Yuki Akuma]

If something is suitable for vegetarians, often the packaging will say so because that gets them more sales. So... stick to unprocessed veggies, nuts, and processed food that says "suitable for vegetarians" on it?

Also protip: learn to make your own potato chips. They're awesome for snacking and you'll know they don't have any animal byproducts in them if you make them yourself.

[Razade]

I don’t know how common a legal obligation that is but don’t the process foods you buy have lists of the ingredients used in them? Then provided you know which colorants and other additives have an animal origin (maybe keep a list with you when you go grocery shopping?) you can avoid products that don’t meet your criteria.

It's a legal requirement in the United States to display what's in food. That includes potential allergens and animal byproducts.

Also if anything is labeled with these

• Casein – from milk (a protein)
• Lactose – from milk (a sugar)
• Whey – from milk. Whey powder is in many products, look out for it in crisps, bread and baked products etc.
• Collagen – from the skin, bones, and connective tissues of animals such as cows, chickens, pigs, and fish – used in cosmetics
• Elastin – found in the neck ligaments and aorta of bovine, similar to collagen
• Keratin – from the skin, bones, and connective tissues of animals such as cows, chickens, pigs, and fish
• Gelatine/gelatin – obtained by boiling skin, tendons, ligaments, and/or bones and is usually from cows or pigs. Used in jelly, chewy sweets, cakes, and in vitamins; as coating/capsules
• Aspic – industry alternative to gelatine; made from clarified meat, fish or vegetable stocks and gelatine
• Lard/tallow – animal fat
• Shellac – obtained from the bodies of the female scale insect Tachardia lacca
• Honey – food for bees, made by bees
• Propolis – used by bees in the construction of their hives
• Royal Jelly – secretion of the throat gland of the honeybee
• Vitamin D3 – from fish-liver oil; in creams, lotions and other cosmetics
• Albumen/albumin – from egg (typically)
• Isinglass – a substance obtained from the dried swim bladders of fish, and is used mainly for the clarification of wine and beer
• Cod liver oil – in lubricating creams and lotions, vitamins and supplements
• Pepsin – from the stomachs of pigs, a clotting agent used in vitamins

They're not Vegan.

[Maryring]

Just avoid preprocessed food in general and cook everything from scratch. The closest you'll come to hidden animal products in such cases are the unlabeled animal labour involved. Don't know about where you're from, but I expect it to be a cheaper alternative in the long run as well.

[Brother Oni]

Also very few foods are actually going to contain anything that has ever seen a bug.

Well, not as a deliberate food additive anyway. Pretty much all factory-line produced food have an 'acceptable contaminant' level.

Details of these limits that manufacturers have to meet are normally available from a country's food standards agency - the FDA lists these in their Food Defect Action Levels publication (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels).

[Evil DM Mark3]

Is helpful

I can empathise with your situation, I am a man with food allergies that really get in the way of my shopping. Razade's list aside, my studious attention to packaging has taught me that a lot of brands will print "Vegan" or "suitable for vegetarians" on them, often with a symbol. I've also learned that most major brands of Smokey Bacon crisps are vegetarian, but most Cheese and Onion ones are not.

The world is dumb.

As for those people who dislike vegetarians and vegans, I can understand why. All you need to do is encounter a few like the one I knew in University (who remains the only person I ever asked to leave an RP group) who reacted to the sight of anyone eating something non-vegan as if they were eating human waste (seriously, with dramatic gagging they insisted as involuntary and looks of buggeyed horror) and I can imagine you go right off them. There are some very obnoxious and loud representatives is what I am saying. I'm used to getting similar reactions from some people because of my faith, just try and ignore it.

[Yuki Akuma]

As for those people who dislike vegetarians and vegans, I can understand why. All you need to do is encounter a few like the one I knew in University (who remains the only person I ever asked to leave an RP group) who reacted to the sight of anyone eating something non-vegan as if they were eating human waste (seriously, with dramatic gagging they insisted as involuntary and looks of buggeyed horror) and I can imagine you go right off them. There are some very obnoxious and loud representatives is what I am saying. I'm used to getting similar reactions from some people because of my faith, just try and ignore it.

...Wow.

How strong was the urge to hit this person in the face with a ham sandwich?

[darkrose50]

Not really. You would need to learn a bunch of stuff, and/or make all your own food. Red food coloring is often crushed up bugs.

[Willie the Duck]

I've also learned that most major brands of Smokey Bacon crisps are vegetarian, but most Cheese and Onion ones are not.

The world is dumb.

Shelf-stable 'bacon-flavored bits' meant for putting on salads and the likes ("Bacos" being the brand most of us in the USA remember the 80s-90s ad campaigns for) are usually vegan. Yes, the world is dumbintensely strange.


As for those people who dislike vegetarians and vegans, I can understand why. All you need to do is encounter a few like the one I knew in University (who remains the only person I ever asked to leave an RP group) who reacted to the sight of anyone eating something non-vegan as if they were eating human waste (seriously, with dramatic gagging they insisted as involuntary and looks of buggeyed horror) and I can imagine you go right off them. There are some very obnoxious and loud representatives is what I am saying.

Wait, someone going to University (and thus being ~18-22, experiencing freedom from their folks for the first time, as well as exposure to all sorts of new ideas) might be annoying in their lifestyle opinions (and tendency to share said opinions vocally and insistently)? Who would have thought?

[Evil DM Mark3]

...Wow.

How strong was the urge to hit this person in the face with a ham sandwich?
Strong. But then again I was a prat. These days I just smile, nod and keep on walking.


Wait, someone going to University (and thus being ~18-22, experiencing freedom from their folks for the first time, as well as exposure to all sorts of new ideas) might be annoying in their lifestyle opinions (and tendency to share said opinions vocally and insistently)? Who would have thought?
I know, right?:smallwink: I was a prat too. Problem is, you meet two or three loud prats you can miss the sea of quiet, normal people.

[factotum]

As for those people who dislike vegetarians and vegans, I can understand why. All you need to do is encounter a few like the one I knew in University (who remains the only person I ever asked to leave an RP group) who reacted to the sight of anyone eating something non-vegan as if they were eating human waste

Conversely, you can have vegetarians like a colleague I had at work, who had no problem with people eating meat so long as they understood where it came from. The one thing he couldn't stand was the sort of person who would refuse to eat rabbit meat because "Awww, so cute!" while being happy to tuck into a steak.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Conversely, you can have vegetarians like a colleague I had at work, who had no problem with people eating meat so long as they understood where it came from. The one thing he couldn't stand was the sort of person who would refuse to eat rabbit meat because "Awww, so cute!" while being happy to tuck into a steak.I'm not saying that most vegetarians aren't nice people. Quite the reverse. I am saying that there are a few who are loud, obnoxious prats who give the rest a bad name, which is true of a lot of groups.

I think that it, naturally, tends to flare up at lunch is what makes some people really sensitive to the particular brand of prattishness.

[Themrys]

Those "natural flavors" and "natural colors" on the food labels aren't phrased that way to hide animal parts from vegetarians. The food companies do it to hide disgusting animal parts from everybody. Not even the most enthusiastic meat eater thinks "beaver anal gland extract" or "crushed beetle juice" sounds appealing.

I am a vegetarian, and I don't have a problem with "crushed beetle juice". (I am not that strict. I also wear leather.) Occasionally, I even eat bee vomit, which doesn't sound much more appetizing.

The only way to safely avoid hidden animal products is to only buy unprocessed foods.

Just recently I read that animal bone is used to get sugar extra white. (Not sure if it was cane or beet sugar that got that treatment. One of those).

So, the only way to be sure is to only buy completely unprocessed food in its original form. Whole grains. Whole lentils, beans, etc. It is perfectly possible to live on such a diet, you might, however, find it rather boring.

But be under no illusions, if your grains come from normal agriculture, (that is, anything that isn't reenactment, experimental archeology or Amish) they come with a price of flat hares and hamsters, and perhaps even the occasional mangled baby deer. Organic agriculture uses big machines, too.
That is not to say that meat-eaters are morally superior (as some annoying meat-eaters would claim), since cattle is nowadays fed with grain and soy, which increases the number of flattened cute animals tenfold in comparison to just eating the grain and soy directly. And of course, even the most enthusiastic meat eaters still eat grains. Unless perhaps they're Inuit living their traditional way of life, in which case the ethics of meat consumption are different anyway.

And of course, all forms of agriculture tend to kill bugs that want to eat the plants. There wouldn't be much of a harvest otherwise. (One of the reasons I don't feel too bad about eating crushed beetles.)

Personally, I just am too lazy to make absolutely sure I don't eat any meat products. I admire people who can do it, but I just don't have the energy.


There's annoying vegans and vegetarians, but I suspect many meat eaters secretly feel bad about their choices and resent people who have the strength to make different ones. (The same phenomenon can be observed in people who wish they could lose weight hating those who order only a small salad and who actually go to the gym twice a week, and people who drink alcohol taking offense at teetotallers who are just minding their own business. I have not personally encountered people who were nasty about me not drinking alcohol, but lots of people who wanted to get me to drink alcohol. Some even admitted they were embarrassed about being drunk with a sober person there. They were perfectly nice people and didn't behave very embarrassingly, but I can easily imagine how less nice people would feel the same things and express those feelings in a much nastier way.)

[sktarq]

As for avoiding animal additives under generic chemical labels...basically look for those that at advertising to you about it (aka they tell you with words and symbols), probably pay the markup based more on healthy marketing research than actual higher costs, and hope that those in charge of such claims have some sort of actual standards and a way to enforce them. (in many places they don't, want St John'd wort extract-maybe half of what is labeled as such actually contains if according to DNA testing a couple years back).

Other than that cook from scratch with whole foods.
And no matter what there will be bugs in your food. In your fresh thrice washed spinach included.
{scrubbed}


As for annoying vegetarians/vegans etc..I generally figure it comes down to two main points.
A: many wave it around as a sort moral superiority issue. They place themselves on a high horse and beat their chest about it. . . Similar behavior can be found in many religious holier-than-thou types and political purity test types of all parties. They are all annoying. Especially to those who have made a different moral judgment and dislike being badgered about it. These people are the source of the "How do you find the vegan in a crowd / don't worry they will tell you" jokes. They contain a degree of truth about the less socialized types.
B: it often feels like vegetarians impose their beliefs on omnivores. Group is eating out? The person most likely to limit options of where to go is the vegan and everybody else has to deal. Homecooked meal? The vegetarian gets a special plate. Now most vegetarians are quite well behaved about this and mitigate as they can. But enough do not to fuel bad memories for many people which are set off even by the well behaved ones. And many of the annoying set can get very pushy in general about it...which is when things combine with the above moral high horse behavior. And in any case their choices become a source of social friction. And sources or said friction tend to be disliked...especially when it is a choice...and especially when people think they are being effected by that choice they didn't make.

Other than that...make friends with legumes...nuts are water hogs...get a soy-milk maker if you like those products as home made is a big step up (after you figure out if you like okara or what to do with it...myself it is the only soy product I like)

personal note which may colour the above:
I generally hold if you are not willing to kill and butcher an animal you shouldn't eat it. So I have gone out of my way to get such opportunities. I think if you are gonna eat meat you should be willing to get your hands bloody and turn a liking being into food and be comfortable with that - a long term side effect of going to a vegetarian grammar school.

[Algeh]

I will note that, at least in the USA, there is a limit to how detailed food ingredient labeling has to be. Companies are allowed to be vague and say things like "natural flavors" or "spices" without going into detail. I'm not a strict enough vegetarian that I worry about it for that reason, but I am allergic to peppers, and paprika is made from dried peppers (and is commonly used both as a spice and as a "natural" colorant), so I have a lot of problems with buying food in general due to this rule and I'd love to see it changed.

[Rynjin]

Basically "you are eating bugs" are what annoying vegans tell other people to be all smug and such.

It's also one of those weird moments where somebody confuses something they find gross in concept with something everyone finds gross in practice.

Setting aside the fact that people eat bugs (and have for millennia; aside: it seems like vegetarians should ENCOURAGE eating bugs if they're of the "meat is bad for you/the environment" variety given there's basically an unlimited source of them out there), most people don't really care where their food comes from so long as it tastes good and doesn't kill them. Yeah, Jell-o might be primarily made of animal bone powder, and most people know that...but they keep eating it, because in the grand scheme that doesn't actually matter at all.


Conversely, you can have vegetarians like a colleague I had at work, who had no problem with people eating meat so long as they understood where it came from. The one thing he couldn't stand was the sort of person who would refuse to eat rabbit meat because "Awww, so cute!" while being happy to tuck into a steak.

And I'm unclear what the issue with this is, either. Most people don't eat pet animals like cats and dogs. Rabbits are often pets; ergo you find it strange to eat a rabbit rather than a cow, which is not generally a pet.

Many people who live in a city have never encountered and may possibly not even think about wild rabbits as a thing.





There's annoying vegans and vegetarians, but I suspect many meat eaters secretly feel bad about their choices and resent people who have the strength to make different ones. (The same phenomenon can be observed in people who wish they could lose weight hating those who order only a small salad and who actually go to the gym twice a week, and people who drink alcohol taking offense at teetotallers who are just minding their own business. I have not personally encountered people who were nasty about me not drinking alcohol, but lots of people who wanted to get me to drink alcohol. Some even admitted they were embarrassed about being drunk with a sober person there. They were perfectly nice people and didn't behave very embarrassingly, but I can easily imagine how less nice people would feel the same things and express those feelings in a much nastier way.)

You outline the reason people feel bad in your post, though don't seem to realize it. People don't like to be judged. If they think you're judging them, they will be uncomfortable.

It's not that they secretly "know they're doing wrong", it's that they think they're hanging out with someone who secretly thinks they're doing wrong, which makes it difficult to connect with that person because now there's the doubt in your mind that they actually want to be your friend or what have you at all. It's that thought process that leads to the perceived-to-be judgy person de facto ostracized from groups, which tends to reinforce their thought pattern that they are right and the others are wrong.

That's a frustrating logic chain because it's the exact same one certain groups use to judge certain other minority groups. "Oh they wouldn't be defensive about it if they didn't know it was wrong", "You wouldn't be so mad if you didn't think I was right deep down..."

[Evil DM Mark3]

There's annoying vegans and vegetarians, but I suspect many meat eaters secretly feel bad about their choices and resent people who have the strength to make different ones.

Huh. And here I was assuming that the stereotype that vegetarians and vegans are all secretly judging everyone else was a trope from bad jokes. That's well its depressing frankly.

Ehe, one more reason to perfect vat-steak.

[Razade]

As an omnivore. I hope we can get lab grown meat faster. Healthier, safer and controlled alternatives to cut down on factory farming is something I'm all for.

[Yuki Akuma]

There's annoying vegans and vegetarians, but I suspect many meat eaters secretly feel bad about their choices and resent people who have the strength to make different ones.

Um, wow. I'd always gotten the vibe that vegetarians and vegans are judging me for my strength of character, but just outright saying it? Damn, dude.

[Brother Oni]

As an omnivore. I hope we can get lab grown meat faster. Healthier, safer and controlled alternatives to cut down on factory farming is something I'm all for.

Since most descriptions of the vat-meat process indicate it's made without the intentional direct suffering of animals, does that mean it's technically vegetarian for those who don't meat for that reason? :smalltongue:

[Razade]

Since most descriptions of the vat-meat process indicate it's made without the intentional direct suffering of animals, does that mean it's technically vegetarian for those who don't meat for that reason? :smalltongue:

I don't know :smalltongue: I don't know many people who eat meat for the intentional and direct suffering of animals either though, so would it be vegetarian for them too?

[Evil DM Mark3]

Since most descriptions of the vat-meat process indicate it's made without the intentional direct suffering of animals, does that mean it's technically vegetarian for those who don't meat for that reason? :smalltongue:Oh you'd be surprised as to what some people insist. After all is it made by taking animal DNA, for some people I've spoken with and some other people with big websites and lobbying budgets, that's enough.

[Imbalance]

I don't know :smalltongue: I don't know many people who eat meat for the intentional and direct suffering of animals either though, so would it be vegetarian for them too?

As an allergy sufferer, I confess that my sole reasoning for consuming any amount of plant matter is bitter and spiteful revenge. I chew slowly. I eat animals 'cause they taste good. I drink alcohol because I hate myself.

[darkrose50]

My wife does not eat pork, or beef. She does eat chicken and fish. It is often easier to say that she is vegetarian. Still she VERY OFTEN gets bacon in nigh everything. I swear bacon is in everything that you order. Pay attention that next time you order something.

Water? Bacon is in it.

Bacon? They somehow add bacon to it!

[Imbalance]

My wife does not eat pork, or beef. She does eat chicken and fish. It is often easier to say that she is vegetarian. Still she VERY OFTEN gets bacon in nigh everything. I swear bacon is in everything that you order. Pay attention that next time you order something.

Water? Bacon is in it.

Bacon? They somehow add bacon to it!

What a fantastic age we live in.

There was a time I found it fairly ridiculous, too, until I tried a bacon-topped, maple-frosted donut, and forever cursed my feeble mortal arteries. Then I found out how bad vegetable oil is and started saving bacon grease to cook potatoes and zucchini crisps instead. Anecdotal, sure, but in the years since I began this my health has genuinely improved.

I'm not knocking vegetarians, but i feel sorry that they choose to exclude such yumminess.

[Themrys]

You outline the reason people feel bad in your post, though don't seem to realize it. People don't like to be judged. If they think you're judging them, they will be uncomfortable.


The thing is that I am not judging them. I just outlined above that it is almost impossible to completely avoid animal suffering, anyway, and that I am not a very strict vegetarian.

I am also not really that strict about not drinking alcohol, I have just taken to pretending that I am very strict about it exactly because people will try to talk you into drinking too much if you don't discourage them by telling them you won't drink even a drop of alcohol. (I also hate the taste of it, but I still did drink alcohol when I was younger and wanted to be polite to people who offered it. Then I realized that got me on the slippery slope of social pressure and refused entirely)

Believe me, I have seen it happen. Perhaps I shouldn't have let it happen, but I didn't want to be - oh irony - seen as being judgemental, so I let someone talk a friend into getting drunk, which in turn led to slightly embarrassing behaviour that was regretted in the morning.

People frequently manage to THINK that someone is judging them who in reality couldn't care less about their eating habits.

Keep in mind that non-vegetarians are the majority of the population. They have no reason to fear that their lifestyle is actually threatened. They also have no reason to assume that every random vegetarian they meet is judging them.


Not saying I don't judge people. But they are usually completely mistaken about what I judge them for. Much to my disappointment, people who do things that I really find morally reprehensible don't even seem to worry that I might judge them for it.
On the other hand, that's rather useful, because no man who wanted to get into my pants has ever been able to successfully pretend to be the kind of man I'd like. (There have been some hilarious unsuccessful attempts, though. Picture Roy imagining Miko would be impressed by his being mistaken for a king.)

What people think they are being judged for and what they are actually being judged for doesn't necessarily have much to do with each other.


@BrotherOni: Plant protein products that look like meat products are vegetarian, but actual meat that is somehow produced without cruelty to animals is still meat. Some vegetarians would no doubt eat it, but that wouldn't make it a vegetarian product.
Sure, most vegetarians are vegetarians because they don't want to harm animals, but that's not the definition of the word. The definition is "a person who doesn't eat meat". It could just as well be for health reasons or because they just don't like the taste. I think everyone would agree that a meal that is advertised as vegetarian shouldn't contain any meat whatsoever.

[Razade]

As an allergy sufferer, I confess that my sole reasoning for consuming any amount of plant matter is bitter and spiteful revenge. I chew slowly. I eat animals 'cause they taste good. I drink alcohol because I hate myself.

Animals do indeed taste good. They taste better when paired with vegetables and alcohol. You know what they say. Alcohol is a liquid and liquids can fill any empty space. A bottle. A Barrel. An empty heart.

[warty goblin]

The only vegetarians I've ever been annoyed by are the Stealth Vegetarians I used to encounter when catering for weddings. Most weddings run off a limited menu, with pre-registered orders, so the kitchen staff can get the entire meal prepped for extremely rapid deployment, and the waitstaff can run trays with the exact food for each table. Vegetarians are absolutely not a problem in this system. People who see their neighbor's vegetarian pasta and decide they'd rather have that then the pork loin they ordered three months ago are an enormous pain to deal with, particularly since these special individuals tend to cluster. Since the waitstaff load trays by table, and the cooks probably don't produce a spare vat of vegetarian food, at the very least the carefully prepped logistics get gummed up, and at the worst somebody ends up trying to make a couple extra pastas on like three minutes notice.

These days I'm almost purely vegetarian when left to my own devices. What I find continually interesting is people who happily eat meat by the bucket, but react strongly to even a vague description of slaughtering an animal. Seems to me there's a sort of fundamental dissonance there. I've slaughtered animals, it's fine. Not my favorite job, but not super-unpleasant either. I'd certainly feel very strange eating meat at all if I couldn't tolerate the deed, let alone the concept of the deed.

[MonkeySage]

I feel like I should have left it at "how do I avoid animal products", without mentioning any stigma. ^_^ I didn't think it'd spark a debate, and while I love a good debate, I just hope it stays friendly, lol.

But yeah... I had a feeling some of the worst offenders might be difficult to avoid because they're hidden behind a "natural flavors" label. Easy enough for me to avoid normally... I've made gelato by hand before. :3

Trouble is, I can't cook worth a damn (I've managed to burn water...), so that's the main reason I go for the easy route, lol.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I suspect many meat eaters secretly feel bad about their choices and resent people who have the strength to make different ones.


The thing is that I am not judging them.

No, you are.

Stating that you feel that a large number of a group feel bad for being members of that group due to their own lack of "strength" isn't being judgemental?

Imagine if the comment had been "I suspect many console gamers secretly feel bad about their choices and resent people who have the attention span to play better games" or "I suspect many audiobook listeners secretly feel bad about their choices and resent people who have the intellect to read properly". The speaker would be rightly considered a PC master-racer or book snob and be considered judgemental in their dismissal of the other group.

[Brother Oni]

@BrotherOni: Plant protein products that look like meat products are vegetarian, but actual meat that is somehow produced without cruelty to animals is still meat. Some vegetarians would no doubt eat it, but that wouldn't make it a vegetarian product.
Sure, most vegetarians are vegetarians because they don't want to harm animals, but that's not the definition of the word. The definition is "a person who doesn't eat meat". It could just as well be for health reasons or because they just don't like the taste. I think everyone would agree that a meal that is advertised as vegetarian shouldn't contain any meat whatsoever.

I was thinking more 'laser printed steak' or 'vat grown flesh' rendered/generated from micro-organisms (e.g. prokaryotes like bacteria, archaea), rather than textured plant/myco protein like soya or Quorn products.

I would agree with you that a meal advertised as vegetarian shouldn't intentionally have any meat in it.

[Evil DM Mark3]

On the subject of synthetic meat, I seem to recall their potential Kosher/Halal status was a plot point on Elementary.

[darkrose50]

Oh some people do not even believe me when I tell them that I am gluten intolerant . . . like it is some made-up thing.

I mean if someone told you that when they ate X they did not digest it properly, would your response be "no, your making that up, everyone can digest everything equally" . . . nope, because most sane folks would be like "okay, that's a thing", and move on.

People are often idjits. Especially if it is new-ish thing that did not occur (as much) when they were younger. Oh the number of times I have to tell people that it was not safer when they were younger because science, technology and cameras are things that are better and more widespread than back in the day (and propaganda and/or news stories pushing dangerous stories are a newer thing).

Even today most murders are not solved, and back in the day even more murders were not solved.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I understand your frustration, my sister has Celiac disease and gluten gets everywhere.

[snowblizz]

Oh some people do not even believe me when I tell them that I am gluten intolerant . . . like it is some made-up thing.
Because, unbelievably as it may be, there are people who de facto make their food allergies up. Most don't specifically do it, shall we misuse the word maliciously, but due to psychosomatic or actual unexplored food issues.
The husband of colleague of mine was for the longest time gluten or lactose intolerant (I forget which), and the reason I say "was" is because when eventually clinically explored turned out to be mostly unknown (at least around these parts) intolerance towards some components of amongst others, onions. Another colleague of mine would have major issues from various types of foods that could not be nailed down in any scientific way.

Similarly the 2 lactose intolerant people in my circle of family and friends, were people who would be miraculously cured the second they sat foot outside the country espousing various excuses of "well it's not processed as hard here" when in fact the ice cream you couldn't eat at home was actually made in Germany or Holland or France and should by that logic be perfectly fine. I won't even dig into the husband of my godmother whose food allergies vary based on what his wife tells him they are.

So yes I tend to be sceptical of various dietary issues people suddenly adopt.


I mean if someone told you that when they ate X they did not digest it properly, would your response be "no, your making that up, everyone can digest everything equally" . . . nope, because most sane folks would be like "okay, that's a thing", and move on.

No, my question would be are you really gluten intolerant or is that just a lifestyle choice? Because so far the score is 4/10. Well not out loud, but in my head.
There are currently a massive wave of people suffering imaginary dietary issues that various, more expensive and heavily marketed, foodstuffs fix. There's a certain "fashion aspect" to the phenomenon. I guess the small minority actually suffering do have a lot more options though, silver lining.

Not that I generally care much except when they start making a nuisance of it.

[Imbalance]

From what I remember reading somewhere, the rise in gluten allergies may have a great deal less to do with an increase in human sensitivity than it does a tremendous increase in the amount of gluten in our GMO wheat. Farmers wanted heartier crops, so science bred out those amber waves of grain in favor of Round-up readiness and a short, woody stalk to hold up massive kernels. The correlation isn't proven, of course (pending litigation in some high-profile cases you may have heard of if you skim the news), but I went searching for conspiracy and kept turning up progress-in-the-name-of-agriculture and good old-fashioned industrial greed.

The science isn't hidden, but rather bragged about in publications that focus on ag. Selective breeding is as ancient as farming itself. What's newer is the massive scale, and the numbers reveal just how successful the practices have been at reducing disease and making crops and livestock with better yields over generations. The downside that we are only beginning to understand (and what big players in the industry seem keen to avoid acknowledging) is the long term effect these practices have on our food supply and us, by extension. "You are what you eat," they say, and what we may be becoming is a soup of residual hormone injections and herbicides.

[Willie the Duck]

There have been a lot of food scares and food fads and health fads out there muddying the waters. Remember when everyone was up in arms about cholesterol instead of fat, or MSG instead of gluten, or when the great bugaboo of diet colas was cancer and not glycemic response? Or heck, every time coffee switches between being good or bad for you? 'Gluten free' seems to be caught in a general backlash of distrust in a treadmill of in vogue things to consider the worst things to eat.

I think gluten-free has specifically gotten such a backlash because 1) you absolutely can still make a glutenous product without gluten (as opposed to, say, vegetarian, where you just have a vegetarian option alongside the meat), but it's challenging, and 2) many-to-most people do know someone who quit gluten for a while, and now is back on. It didn't help that a number of studies came out and stated that people that thought they were gluten intolerant were probably technically not.

None of which means that thinking that someone who finds eating XYZ a digestive problem is probably 'making it up' make any more sense. Different people have different reactions to different foods. Or different people at different ages. I'd hate to think what my body would do to the greasy spoon breakfasts I use to eat in my 20s.

[darkrose50]

Yes when something becomes popular you get all the flack for it being popular. This is both good and bad. Good because there are more options to eat, and bad because people think that you can digest things that you cannot.

For example, I listened to my idiot (ex) doctor, ate some wheat, and was sick for weeks. She told me that I tested negative for celiac disease, ergo I could eat wheat. I was like cool-beans doc, off I go to eat some REAL pizza (and cookies and brownies)! I was an idiot, listed to my doctor, and suffered for it. I cannot eat much wheat without it effecting my digestion and/or my mind (gluten does not play well with autism). Seriously wheat-packed brownies would be the food that I would like to eat for-ever-and-a-day, but I just cannot do it without feeling like crap afterword's . . . sometimes for weeks.

-----

Theoretically one can get over an intolerance. Brace yourselves . . . fecal microbiota transplant . . . is a thing (enema, or frozen in a capsule).

Also enzymes. One can take an enzyme supplement (one that you do not adequately poses) and eventually grow your own.

Likely what often occurs is that someone gets sick, takes an antibiotic (or whatnot), and looses enough of a population of the little guys in the gut that break this or that down. So you can go from being able to digest something, to not, and back again.

Also folks age and loose the ability to digest something as well as they did when they were younger. Some due to age, and some likely due to taking medications that mess with your gut fauna and flora.

[Brother Oni]

Similarly the 2 lactose intolerant people in my circle of family and friends, were people who would be miraculously cured the second they sat foot outside the country espousing various excuses of "well it's not processed as hard here" when in fact the ice cream you couldn't eat at home was actually made in Germany or Holland or France and should by that logic be perfectly fine. I won't even dig into the husband of my godmother whose food allergies vary based on what his wife tells him they are.

So yes I tend to be sceptical of various dietary issues people suddenly adopt.

It also depends on how much a person lets dietary restrictions rule their lives.

As an example, I'm moderately lactose/dairy intolerant* and if I'm traveling, I refuse to touch the stuff. If I'm at home or at work, I'll sneak some chocolate or a slice of pizza and sit in a well ventilated spot for the couple hours since I know where the toilets are.

*I haven't quite pinned it down as it apparently varies depending on what I eat: milk and cream have their full effect; reduced lactose milk and yogurt have a mild to moderate effect; whey derived protein powder is particularly bad; cheese depends - goat's cheese has its full effect, while takeout pizza is ok but homemade pizza is not so good.
I should really sneak some pharmaceutical grade lactose from work and see if that sets me off to put the matter to bed, but trying to do that without triggering a misconduct charge might be tricky.

[Gnoman]

From what I remember reading somewhere, the rise in gluten allergies may have a great deal less to do with an increase in human sensitivity than it does a tremendous increase in the amount of gluten in our GMO wheat. Farmers wanted heartier crops, so science bred out those amber waves of grain in favor of Round-up readiness and a short, woody stalk to hold up massive kernels. The correlation isn't proven, of course (pending litigation in some high-profile cases you may have heard of if you skim the news), but I went searching for conspiracy and kept turning up progress-in-the-name-of-agriculture and good old-fashioned industrial greed.

The science isn't hidden, but rather bragged about in publications that focus on ag. Selective breeding is as ancient as farming itself. What's newer is the massive scale, and the numbers reveal just how successful the practices have been at reducing disease and making crops and livestock with better yields over generations. The downside that we are only beginning to understand (and what big players in the industry seem keen to avoid acknowledging) is the long term effect these practices have on our food supply and us, by extension. "You are what you eat," they say, and what we may be becoming is a soup of residual hormone injections and herbicides.

That doesn't make any sense. Baking is an extremely gluten-dependent process, and any change in gluten levels will result in an entirely different (and usually inedible) product unless a deliberate and careful effort is made to prevent this by altering other ingredients and/or ratios. This is why extra-gluten flours exist - some baked goods can not be made properly with ordinary flour.


This is the primary reason why gluten-free products that are not considerably inferior to the conventional variety are a relatively recent phenomenon. Food scientists took a long time to compensate for the extreme difficulty of baking without the stuff.

[darkrose50]

From what I recall gluten basically makes bread settle faster. Faster settling bread equal more profit. So a bread manufacturer can make more bread, in the same space, faster.

From what I understand the new-fangled gluten bread (well the wheat) has a lot more gluten as a result than it once did.

[AMFV]

From what I recall gluten basically makes bread settle faster. Faster settling bread equal more profit. So a bread manufacturer can make more bread, in the same space, faster.

From what I understand the new-fangled gluten bread (well the wheat) has a lot more gluten as a result than it once did.

You can't just add more gluten and then get the same result faster though. It doesn't work that way.

[Imbalance]

It's not just baking - gluten is used in everything from luncheon meats to vodka, lipstick and Play-doh, it's the G in MSG. It's easy to find entire lists of not only the relevant grain sources, but also all of the products it is used in and what the processed form of it is called. The crops being better makes it more readily available to use in more products, not just your bread or whatever.

[Xuc Xac]

Oh some people do not even believe me when I tell them that I am gluten intolerant . . . like it is some made-up thing.


The next time you go out to eat at a restaurant with gluten free menu options, ask your server "How many times have you seen someone insist on a gluten free meal and then drink beer and eat all the bread on the table?"

A lot of people don't even know what gluten is and aren't bothered by it, but they think "gluten free" food is somehow superior and being gluten free is cool. These are the same type of people that buy "fat free" sugar and "zero carb" water. If diabetes has just been discovered last month, they would be ordering sugar free drinks for their "diabetes" while enjoying a big bowl of ice cream.

[Xuc Xac]

It's not just baking - gluten is used in everything from luncheon meats to vodka, lipstick and Play-doh, it's the G in MSG.

MSG is monosodium glutamate, a salt of glutamic acid. It's not related to gluten, which is a mixture of proteins.

[warty goblin]

From what I recall gluten basically makes bread settle faster. Faster settling bread equal more profit. So a bread manufacturer can make more bread, in the same space, faster.

From what I understand the new-fangled gluten bread (well the wheat) has a lot more gluten as a result than it once did.

A few points. Gluten content isn't really associated with speed of bread production. Gluten, when worked through kneading, makes the dough sturdy enough that it traps the CO2 emitted by yeast as it digests the carbohydrates in the flour. Increasing the gluten content of the flour doesn't allow the bread to rise faster - that's determined by how fast the yeast metabolizes and reproduces which is mostly determined by temperature and flour weight/texture - it allows a larger, airier loaf.

Also, it's well (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573730/#targetText=The%20gluten%20content%20of%20wheat,75 %25%20of%20total%20protein%20content.) established (https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Kansas/Publications/Cooperative_Projects/KS_wheat2017.pdf)* that gluten content has not been increasing over the last hundred plus years. Nor are there are any GMO wheat varieties grown commercially in the US; which wouldn't matter anyway because gluten is a protein and it doesn't matter if the genes that code for its production come from wheat or cuttlefish**.


*Does not unfortunately present protein content of wheat in a tabular form. However it's easy enough to text search "protein" and cycle through years, which reveals that the protein content varies between about 9% and 14%, with most years coming in the high 11% to low 12% range. Also looking through NASS crop reports is giving me grad school flashbacks.


**I have no evidence that cuttlefish can, or cannot, synthesize gluten. Though if they could, I'd definitely try cuttlefish bread: clearly the most Lovecraftian on the market. If the stars are right, your loaf will take on blasphemous geometries, for what is dead may never die, and with strange eons, even death is delicious with 10% rye.

[Imbalance]

MSG is monosodium glutamate, a salt of glutamic acid. It's not related to gluten, which is a mixture of proteins.

I stand corrected. It's been years since I looked into all of it, so I had better bow out before my faulty memory conjures further error. I stand by the point I was trying to make, though.

[Bohandas]

The only way to safely avoid hidden animal products is to only buy unprocessed foods.

Or buy foods that are so heavily processed that they have no natural flavors or similar umbrella terms at all, just specific chemicals and processed ingredients. Oreos are vegan*. They're basically just straight high-fructose corn syrup with a handful of plant-based binding agents to make it solid.


*(or the oreo recipe is vegan at any rate; IIRC they may contain trace amounts of milk since they're made in facilities that also produce non-vegan foods)


The next time you go out to eat at a restaurant with gluten free menu options, ask your server "How many times have you seen someone insist on a gluten free meal and then drink beer and eat all the bread on the table?"

A lot of people don't even know what gluten is and aren't bothered by it, but they think "gluten free" food is somehow superior and being gluten free is cool. These are the same type of people that buy "fat free" sugar and "zero carb" water. If diabetes has just been discovered last month, they would be ordering sugar free drinks for their "diabetes" while enjoying a big bowl of ice cream.

The newest trend of this type seems to be people going on ketogenic diets despite not having epilepsy. This trend also seems to be associated with a growing market for food products which can only be described as "diet fat (https://www.amazon.com/FBOMB-Premium-MCT-Oil-Go/dp/B07BJHLDRW)"

[Brother Oni]

The newest trend of this type seems to be people going on ketogenic diets despite not having epilepsy. This trend also seems to be associated with a growing market for food products which can only be described as "diet fat (https://www.amazon.com/FBOMB-Premium-MCT-Oil-Go/dp/B07BJHLDRW)"

Bodybuilders and figure models also use ketogenic diets in order to reduce their body fat percentage for competitions. They're also prescribed to overweight people by doctors and dietitians as part of a weight control regimes.

Ketogenic diets are just low carbohydrate diets to trigger preferential fat usage - it's not as if they've been designed for epilepsy treatments and have been co-opted by fad dieters.

[warty goblin]

To be clear, the reason restaurants are annoyed by people passing off a preference as a food allergy is that a food allergy requires a lot more work from the kitchen. If you just want a hamburger patty with no bun, that's easy. If you want it because gluten makes you sick, we need to scrub down all the work surfaces that your meal could come into contact with, and make sure they stay clean until that order is out the door. That requires coordination with every other order currently up. That's five minutes extra work, easy. Which is totally fine if you need that, but otherwise means you've wasted our time and complicated every other order we're working on.

The other reason is that people will use an allergy (real or otherwise) to treat the menu less as a menu and more of an ingredient list. The menu is not an ingredient list, it's what we are prepped, set up, and trained to make.

[Razade]

To be clear, the reason restaurants are annoyed by people passing off a preference as a food allergy is that a food allergy requires a lot more work from the kitchen. If you just want a hamburger patty with no bun, that's easy. If you want it because gluten makes you sick, we need to scrub down all the work surfaces that your meal could come into contact with, and make sure they stay clean until that order is out the door. That requires coordination with every other order currently up. That's five minutes extra work, easy. Which is totally fine if you need that, but otherwise means you've wasted our time and complicated every other order we're working on.

The other reason is that people will use an allergy (real or otherwise) to treat the menu less as a menu and more of an ingredient list. The menu is not an ingredient list, it's what we are prepped, set up, and trained to make.

As a kitchen worker, this like 10000000%.

We get people who come in all the time and say they're allergic to pickles. Except then they order a burger sauce, which has relish in it, and eat it with no ill effects. It takes a considerable amount of time to work with food allergies. We do it because it's important obviously but it's time we have to spend concentrated on not murdering someone rather than keeping food moving to the customers. It's not like a kitchen will tell you no in most places if you just say you don't like something. You're the customer. We want to make you happy because if we don't you won't pay us. We'll make the food you want, the way you want us to as best we can.

[darkrose50]

You can't just add more gluten and then get the same result faster though. It doesn't work that way.

I am not sure why that stuck out at me. I think that was from a news story on the topic I watched. It could be that increased gluten was a side-effect.

A doctor/scientist mentioned in this article seems to think "That didn't mean gluten itself was causing disease, but the finding hinted that the barrier of those patients' intestines might be defective, allowing partially digested gluten to get out of the gut and interact with immune cells in the blood."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/what-s-really-behind-gluten-sensitivity

Perhaps it is like saying X does not cause Y, except when it combines with Z. So gluten may not effect people, or those with autism, in general. But it might effect some people with a combination of things. Like red food coloring does not cause hyperactivity, except that red food coloring totally causes me to bounce off the walls.

I am not sure why but gluten somehow effects me in several negative ways. I was having issues with an inflamed prostate. Then I went to a weekend of tournaments, and basically only drank Ensure (a quick, easy, lazy meal). All the issues went away. I figured that (a) Ensure is good for the prostate (all the old man vitamins must be good), and (b) perhaps not eating wheat helped. For whatever reason when I cut wheat out I do not have issues with my prostate. I also have a substantial reduction in gestational issues (diarrhea, constipation, gas, bloating) when I do not eat wheat.

I am going to see another dietician soon-ish. I saw one a few years ago, but he basically told me that he helped folks loose weight, and did not know anything (enough?) about gluten to help me.

-----

"Studies have shown that people with an intolerance to gluten are able to consume gluten containing Ancient-grains because they are not as processed as today’s wheat. Today’s wheat is one of the most processed crops. With such high demand for wheat, farmers are genetically modifying and using pesticides to produce a stronger and more cost effective crop. Some of these chemicals used on wheat may be the reason for a rise in food intolerances." https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/what-s-really-behind-gluten-sensitivity

-----

"It could be another protein in wheat," he says. "It could also be that once you remove gluten, you're also removing a number of other carbohydrates that are hard to digest. So you eliminate them and that makes you feel better." https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/09/26/226510988/doctors-say-changes-in-wheat-do-not-explain-rise-of-celiac-disease

-----


As a kitchen worker, this like 10000000%.

When I order rice noodles I need to tell them that it is not due to a gluten allergy, or they will want to cook them separately. I would not call what I have an allergy, but perhaps it is. I am allergic to cats, and it is nothing like that in the least.

-----


No, my question would be are you really gluten intolerant or is that just a lifestyle choice? Because so far the score is 4/10. Well not out loud, but in my head.

There are currently a massive wave of people suffering imaginary dietary issues that various, more expensive and heavily marketed, foodstuffs fix. There's a certain "fashion aspect" to the phenomenon. I guess the small minority actually suffering do have a lot more options though, silver lining.

Not that I generally care much except when they start making a nuisance of it.

If one of your friends moved from the sick towards the healthy side by not eating wheat, then you might also think that it could work for you, even if you do not have any issues with gluten.

[ve4grm]

"Studies have shown that people with an intolerance to gluten are able to consume gluten containing Ancient-grains because they are not as processed as today’s wheat. Today’s wheat is one of the most processed crops. With such high demand for wheat, farmers are genetically modifying and using pesticides to produce a stronger and more cost effective crop. Some of these chemicals used on wheat may be the reason for a rise in food intolerances." https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/what-s-really-behind-gluten-sensitivity

Right, so that quote doesn't seem to be in that article? Perhaps it's in the video, I didn't watch it, but I'm confused as the article isn't saying that at all. It's in fact saying that gluten itself may not even be causing non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

The ancient grains thing also seems wrong, as the name Celiac Disease is actually a translation from ancient greek, where it was first recorded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease#History
I don't know about just gluten intolerance (as they have different causes) but Celiac is possibly as old as cultivated grain is. That is for celiac itself, of course, and not necessarily gluten intolerance, but still.

EDIT: The correct link for the above quote is here: https://firstdescents.org/fd-healthy-gluten-guide/
This site is a non-medical page, from a group that seems to be trying to heal cancer with... adventure? (Providing opportunities to be something other than "a cancer patient" to those with cancer is an admirable goal, but they're still not a medical source.)
I'm not sure I'd trust their medical conclusions over actual studies, unless you find the studies they're referring to, which they don't cite.

That said, yes some grains have less gluten in them. Or none, perhaps. But it's not the processing that gives it the gluten. Raw wheat has just as much gluten as any modern, processed wheat flour.

[warty goblin]

If one of your friends moved from the sick towards the healthy side by not eating wheat, then you might also think that it could work for you, even if you do not have any issues with gluten.
An important point to remember with all medical "my cousin did the one weird thing and got better" stories is that people move from states of vague illness to health and back all the time. One person doing this at the same time they also changed diets is an interesting anecdote, but that's it. By the time you add in the effects of other dietary changes (what else did they stop eating at the same time? did they change the amount or frequency they eat?) the general unreliability of self-report data and the tremendous power of the placebo effect and it's worth as actual, actionable data is zero.

This is why we have randomized trials. Generally I treat information, particularly dietary information, that does not come bearing random trials data or at least some form of vaguely principled retrospective analysis of actual data with extreme skepticism. It's possible they're onto something real. It's also possible that they're trying to convince me to spend more money. Given that these things cycle in and out of vogue every 3-5 years, I have a fairly strong prior belief that it's the latter.

[Bohandas]

I still say the OP should stick to Oreos and those two Doritos flavors that don't have cheese in them (Sweet Spicy Chili and Toasted Corn IIRC)

EDIT:
Yeah, here we go: https://veganfoodlover.com/are-doritos-vegan/


As a kitchen worker, this like 10000000%.

We get people who come in all the time and say they're allergic to pickles. Except then they order a burger sauce, which has relish in it, and eat it with no ill effects.

That said, some people who really do have allergies play fast and loose with the doctor's orders.

I had a guy at my job who used to insist that his nut allergy was only dangerous if he had a lot of them. In his defense he was well enough to drive himself to the doctor's office rather than taking an ambulance.

[snowblizz]

From what I remember reading somewhere, the rise in gluten allergies may have a great deal less to do with an increase in human sensitivity than it does a tremendous increase in the amount of gluten in our GMO wheat. Farmers wanted heartier crops, so science bred out those amber waves of grain in favor of Round-up readiness and a short, woody stalk to hold up massive kernels. The correlation isn't proven, of course (pending litigation in some high-profile cases you may have heard of if you skim the news), but I went searching for conspiracy and kept turning up progress-in-the-name-of-agriculture and good old-fashioned industrial greed.

The science isn't hidden, but rather bragged about in publications that focus on ag. Selective breeding is as ancient as farming itself. What's newer is the massive scale, and the numbers reveal just how successful the practices have been at reducing disease and making crops and livestock with better yields over generations. The downside that we are only beginning to understand (and what big players in the industry seem keen to avoid acknowledging) is the long term effect these practices have on our food supply and us, by extension. "You are what you eat," they say, and what we may be becoming is a soup of residual hormone injections and herbicides.

Can't speak exactly to the gluten thing (and I see the following discussions casts doubts there) but similar aspects exist to most food sensitivites and allergies. As I understand it, food allergies, and even allergies in general are, sort of, unknown before modern times. I know it has been talked about in the science community. Whether it is they are more common now, or simply went un(der)reported previously we don't really know. I think general (over)cleanliness is one factor often blamed for our overreacting immunesystems. But people in the past had less varied diets too so anyone with odd allergies would be less probable to meet their kryptonite so to speak and much more likely to not survive with no alternatives. For centuries you ate bread as your main food source or starved to death. More often than not, there was no "or" either.
I actually some years ago had a pretty bad reaction to honeydew melon, right out of the blue, had eaten dozens that summer but then, once, one is like I'm eating sandpaper. Burning my gums and lips was the feeling I got. For a while after couldn't eat them at all. Now get occasional pangs when sucking in too much of the juciy sweet core of one.

Scandinavians in general are more lactose tolerant as adults I recall geneticists have found. Which is where I find it hilarious we are also leading the way in lactosefree dairy products it seems. Although I'll admit, it's probably less of an issue if adults generally drink wine instead of milk as we like to say about those southern people.
The local hospital stopped offering milk to it's staff at coffeebreaks citing the problem of providing alternatives. A sort of joke I may or may not have invented is that today a group of 4 people need 5 kinds of milk for their coffee. My parents often have at least 4 in the fridge, not counting creams...




I had a guy at my job who used to insist that his nut allergy was only dangerous if he had a lot of them. In his defense he was well enough to drive himself to the doctor's office rather than taking an ambulance.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

[darkrose50]

My wife once ate a pint of raw mushrooms. Her face blew up, and it look like she was punched in the face repeatedly. She can eat cooked mushroom and/or less mushrooms without any noticeable side-effects.

I can eat small quantities of gluten (I probably should not) without noticing any ill-effects.

Different folks will often have a different populations of bacteria and whatnot. Some will have more of X, and some will have less of X. Europeans tend to be able to digest cows milk, and the Japanese tend to be able to digest seaweed. We have different populations of bacteria (enzymes, or whatnot) in the gut.

[ve4grm]

My wife once ate a pint of raw mushrooms. Her face blew up, and it look like she was punched in the face repeatedly. She can eat cooked mushroom and/or less mushrooms without any noticeable side-effects.

I know 2 people (my mom and a friend) who can eat cooked apples, but not uncooked. Cooking them breaks down whatever it is (a protein or enzyme probably?) that causes the reaction. (Apparently it's not an allergy to apples per se, but to all trees in the birch family. Apples are just the only fruit of those trees that most people eat regularly.)

As far as your wife and the pint of mushrooms, perhaps her body was just punishing her for eating an entire pint of them?

Also possible, because I think mushrooms can be worse for this than most vegetables since they're so porous and soft and are harder to wash, there was something that got into that particular batch of mushrooms. Perhaps even something microbial which caused the reaction.

Unless she's since eaten other pints of mushrooms with the same reaction. Then that's weird. :smallbiggrin:

[darkrose50]

Right, so that quote doesn't seem to be in that article? Perhaps it's in the video, I didn't watch it, but I'm confused as the article isn't saying that at all. It's in fact saying that gluten itself may not even be causing non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

It was in a news story that I watched (likely on YouTube). Reporters often misinterpret things. I should know better, I apologize.


The ancient grains thing also seems wrong, as the name Celiac Disease is actually a translation from ancient greek, where it was first recorded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease#History

Issues with gluten is likely a combination of things. The wheat we eat is not the same. The way we technologically process the wheat is not the same. The modern human is not the same. The way we chemically process the wheat is likely not the same. The parasites, symbiotes, and whatnot are not the same. What we eat overall is not the same, and likely interacts with the composition of all the things in our gut. The medications that we take likely mess with things in our gut.


I don't know about just gluten intolerance (as they have different causes) but Celiac is possibly as old as cultivated grain is. That is for celiac itself, of course, and not necessarily gluten intolerance, but still.

From my limited knowledge Celiac is a variant shape of the surface of the small intestine that does not work well with gluten.


EDIT: The correct link for the above quote is here: https://firstdescents.org/fd-healthy-gluten-guide/
This site is a non-medical page, from a group that seems to be trying to heal cancer with... adventure? (Providing opportunities to be something other than "a cancer patient" to those with cancer is an admirable goal, but they're still not a medical source.)
I'm not sure I'd trust their medical conclusions over actual studies, unless you find the studies they're referring to, which they don't cite.
That said, yes some grains have less gluten in them. Or none, perhaps. But it's not the processing that gives it the gluten. Raw wheat has just as much gluten as any modern, processed wheat flour.

I think one idea is that the modern processing the wheat is different and may have an effect on how the gluten (or gluten adjacent proteins) are digested, absorbed, and/or how they may fall though the gastrointestinal tract and run amuck.

-----

Oh it is annoying not to know EXACTLY how or why you get sick. There are no tests that I am aware of that test for gluten sensitivity. I can take enzymes that remove (enough of) the negative digestion affect that gluten has on me. However it also seems to dull my mind. For whatever reason(s) it is just best practice for me to make a conscious decision to avoid gluten.

Avoiding all gluten is nigh impossible. Gluten is just everywhere. It is detectable in just about everything that we eat. Even foods that are made from ingredients that do not contain gluten, contain trace amounts of gluten for various reasons (gluten plants sneaking in and growing with non-gluten plants, and/or packaging facilities packaging gluten and non-gluten foodstuffs in the same building). Even “gluten free” foods contain trace amounts of gluten.

For whatever reason there is an uptick in folks who when they do not eat gluten, just feel better for whatever unknown reason.

Folks can try some sort of elimination diet. Frankly it could be food-coloring or preservatives found in gluten processed foods that are causing the problems. If the case, then eliminating all gluten fixes it, then simplifying things by saying I am gluten intolerant is efficient. It would be nice to know EXACTLY what the cause of the problems are. Apparently we have scientists and doctors working on figuring out this dilemma.

[Brother Oni]

As I understand it, food allergies, and even allergies in general are, sort of, unknown before modern times. I know it has been talked about in the science community. Whether it is they are more common now, or simply went un(der)reported previously we don't really know.

Depends on exactly what you mean by allergies. In countries where the large majority of the adult population are lactose intolerant, the culture's cooking is virtually diary free. From personal experience, traditional Chinese and Japanese cooking has pretty much no dairy (and what dairy there is, is from cultural imports from western nations, like chocolate and ice cream).

[Yuki Akuma]

Depends on exactly what you mean by allergies. In countries where the large majority of the adult population are lactose intolerant, the culture's cooking is virtually diary free. From personal experience, traditional Chinese and Japanese cooking has pretty much no dairy (and what dairy there is, is from cultural imports from western nations, like chocolate and ice cream).

Fun fact: lactose tolerance is a genetic aberration only found in about 45% 35% of humans. In most mammals, adults cannot digest lactose at all.

Edit: 65 + 45 != 100. Derp.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Depends on exactly what you mean by allergies. In countries where the large majority of the adult population are lactose intolerant, the culture's cooking is virtually diary free. From personal experience, traditional Chinese and Japanese cooking has pretty much no dairy (and what dairy there is, is from cultural imports from western nations, like chocolate and ice cream).

Intolerance =/= allergy. Not even close. A food intolerance is a lack of ability to digest something, causing distress as your body has to eject material it isn't set up for. An allergy is an autoimmune response where your body decides it is under attack and reacts like you are sick, up to and including dropping its nuclear options into your bloodstream. The former can be uncomfortable and distressing but allergies can kill. For example Celiac disease, which is more like an allergy than gluten intolerance, causes you small intestine to become stripped of villi, leading to serious problems in nutrition uptake. Meanwhile a milk allergy doesn't give you painful gas and cramps, it can cause your throat to swell shut.


Fun fact: lactose tolerance is a genetic aberration only found in about 45% of humans. In most mammals, adults cannot digest lactose at all.I had read that it was 65%, but it is also not uniform, for instance lactose intolerance is astonishingly rare if you have British or Irish heritage, more common in mainland Europe and Russia and Asia it can be less than 10% who can digest lactose.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest we have been eating milk products and slowly been getting better at it for most of recorded history, stating with cheese (which is lower in lactose) and moving on to the wet stuff. There are even temple records from ancient Egypt listing dozens of regional varieties of cheese, its surprisingly interesting.

In a related point, we have recently discovered that feeding babies animal milk has been a thing for 3000 years. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49813039) (Anyone else find it cute that, even 3000 years ago, we put animal faces on baby things?)

[Yuki Akuma]

I had read that it was 65%, but it is also not uniform, for instance lactose intolerance is astonishingly rare if you have British or Irish heritage, more common in mainland Europe and Russia and Asia it can be less than 10% who can digest lactose.

Ah, I got it wrong - 65% of people have lactose intolerance, so I should have put 35%. My bad.

[ve4grm]

It was in a news story that I watched (likely on YouTube). Reporters often misinterpret things. I should know better, I apologize.

No worries. I was mostly just confused.


Issues with gluten is likely a combination of things. The wheat we eat is not the same. The way we technologically process the wheat is not the same. The modern human is not the same. The way we chemically process the wheat is likely not the same. The parasites, symbiotes, and whatnot are not the same. What we eat overall is not the same, and likely interacts with the composition of all the things in our gut. The medications that we take likely mess with things in our gut.

All true. But what hasn't really changed is the grain itself. (It has a bit, but not as much as you might think.) Bread recipes from 100 years ago or more (which are very dependent on gluten content) still work today.

As for ancient grains, some may be gluten-free or low-gluten. It has nothing to do with the way they're processed, though. Gluten is a protein in the grain, it isn't created or destroyed by processing.

The other things you mention? Yes, they could all be factors. I was just disagreeing with what that statement was declaring.


I think one idea is that the modern processing the wheat is different and may have an effect on how the gluten (or gluten adjacent proteins) are digested, absorbed, and/or how they may fall though the gastrointestinal tract and run amuck.

While I admittedly haven't done an extensive search, I can't find anything suggesting that the processing affects it. I'm pretty sure if you took a stalk of wheat and just ground it up and fed it to a gluten intolerant person, they'd still have the same issues? I'm can't say that it's for sure wrong, but I'm skeptical.

I did find statements that gluten intolerant people should try to incorporate more (gluten-free) whole grains in their diet, since a lot of gluten-free products are just starch and not fibre.

Don't mind me too much, though. I'm just a huge skeptic. Do what works for you.

[darkrose50]

Don't mind me too much, though. I'm just a huge skeptic. Do what works for you.

I can see measurable results.

I bought an enzyme that helps in digesting gluten. It worked (to a degree). All the same I did not feel well after (the loss of mental clarity, overall sluggishness). I think that I might need to find the right combination of enzymes. It could be that the gluten to enzyme ratio was off. Evidently I can introduce the enzymes and hope that they eventually take hold. Perhaps I will try taking the enzymes daily for a year, and then try eating gluten.

I have a referral to see a dietitian. I hope that I can find one that knows something that is useful to me.

[Honest Tiefling]

Hey, darkrose50, try King Arthur Gluten-Free brownie mix. Verified GF facility according to the box, but you don't seem that sensitive unless I misunderstood something. Also, which enzymes are you using? I've been using some to eat fruit I couldn't before, curious what would work for gluten as I have a very bad gluten intolerance.


Meanwhile a milk allergy doesn't give you painful gas and cramps, it can cause your throat to swell shut.

I had read that it was 65%, but it is also not uniform, for instance lactose intolerance is astonishingly rare if you have British or Irish heritage, more common in mainland Europe and Russia and Asia it can be less than 10% who can digest lactose.

It's really not uniform. Populations descended from either Scandinavian or certain North African groups are far more likely to retain lactose tolerance into adulthood than others. Where I'm from, there's a store that sells Hispanic and Asian foods and the section for lactose free milk is bigger than the lactose-containing milk.

Many types of cheese and yogurt reduce the amount of lactose significantly, so their use doesn't suggest that the population is any good at the lactose thing. Different types of milk, particularly goat, might have reduced amounts of lactose. (I'm not really sure as modern goat's milk is prepared differently as it is very quickly pasturized)

However, allergies can indeed cause vomiting and other GI symptoms without anaphylactic shock. The throat swelling isn't the only sign of an allergy, as different systems can decide to freak out and try to murder you. Skin rashes, vomiting and GI upset are all symptoms of an allergy and can be separate from each other. So if a food makes you vomit, you might still want to get checked for an allergy.

Back to the OP: Three things I stumbled upon: Cheese, beer, and white sugar aren't typically vegan. Most white sugar is processed with bone char and while it doesn't get into the finished product, that's probably doesn't count as vegetarian or vegan by most standards. Cheese can be processed with vegetarian rennet, but isn't also. Beer might use fish product to clarify the end product.

[Brother Oni]

Intolerance =/= allergy. Not even close.

I do know the difference - give me enough time and I can probably recite the relevant immune response pathway.

I was just asking for clarification as I've met people who conflate the two.


It's really not uniform. Populations descended from either Scandinavian or certain North African groups are far more likely to retain lactose tolerance into adulthood than others. Where I'm from, there's a store that sells Hispanic and Asian foods and the section for lactose free milk is bigger than the lactose-containing milk.

Yes, curse you lactase persistence mutants and your innate ability to eat that tasty, tasty cheese. :smallfrown:

[Evil DM Mark3]

I was just asking for clarification as I've met people who conflate the two.

Ah, one of those "we both mean the same things differnt ways" moments.

I first got the difference made clear to me by a Jewish friend who explained they had to avoid milk entierly for reasons that had nothing to do with keeping Kosher. Apparently they have had more than a few people assume that, because they know Kashrut they knew what my friend could eat and they had some very near misses and one A&E trip.

[Honest Tiefling]

Yes, curse you lactase persistence mutants and your innate ability to eat that tasty, tasty cheese. :smallfrown:

Cheese aged more than six months tends to be pretty low on lactose. Combine that with the enzyme pills (lactaid brand seems to work for most people) and most non-lactose tolerant people I have met (and I live in an area where only about half of the population is lactose tolerant, give or take a few percentages) can handle cheese.

Or just get some air fresheners depending on your symptoms.

[Peelee]

Yes, curse you lactase persistence mutants and your innate ability to eat that tasty, tasty cheese. :smallfrown:

I'm always more than happy to share my milkloaf.

[Bohandas]

I cannot eat much wheat without it effecting my digestion and/or my mind (gluten does not play well with autism).

It was always my understanding that the connection between digestive troubles and autism was one of the fabrications of discredited quack Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license after publishing several alleged "research" papers on autism that later turned out to be completely made up.

[Vinyadan]

It was always my understanding that the connection between digestive troubles and autism was one of the fabrications of discredited quack Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license after publishing several alleged "research" papers on autism that later turned out to be completely made up.

There recently were NYT articles on the connection between brain and intestine. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/health/microbiome-brain-behavior-dementia.html (I was actually looking for a different one, but this looks fairly close).

[Brother Oni]

It was always my understanding that the connection between digestive troubles and autism was one of the fabrications of discredited quack Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license after publishing several alleged "research" papers on autism that later turned out to be completely made up.

To clarify Vindayan's comments a bit, there's evidence that gut microbiome has an effect on brain chemistry. Whether there's a specific link to autism is not yet known, only that of all the people with autism assessed in these studies, it's been noticed that they have significantly different gut biome.
The papers I've read don't indicate how the biome is different or whether those people have the same differences to non-autistic people, just that they're different.

Some papers to support research into this whole thing:

The Brain-Gut-Microbiome Axis, Martin et al. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6047317/)
The Intestinal Microbiota Affect Central Levels of Brain-Derived Neurotropic Factor and Behavior in Mice, Bercik et al. (https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(11)00607-X/fulltext)

[Bohandas]

There recently were NYT articles on the connection between brain and intestine. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/health/microbiome-brain-behavior-dementia.html (I was actually looking for a different one, but this looks fairly close).

I tend not to trust news articles about diet or psychology. Even if based on fact they tend to be sensationalized.

That said it does seem to be mentioned - albeit only in passing - on wikipedia's article on gluten related disorders in a list of things which may be exacerbated by gluten sensitivity

[snowblizz]

Yes, curse you lactase persistence mutants and your innate ability to eat that tasty, tasty cheese. :smallfrown:

A super power seldom brought up in X-Men. AFAIK.

[Brother Oni]

I tend not to trust news articles about diet or psychology. Even if based on fact they tend to be sensationalized.

How about the peer reviewed papers I linked?


A super power seldom brought up in X-Men. AFAIK.

It's probably on par with the other most common super power possessed by super heroes - the ability to squeeze into those skin tight spandex costumes.

Not linking the TV tropes page.

[Asmotherion]

No. There is no secret conspiracy to force vegans to eat meat and diery. if you're that worried about it choose products that are labeled vegeterian or vegan or whatever.

However you can't expect the whole ecconomy to function based on your dietary choices. People love the taste of meat. i personally respect that some people don't want to consume it for whatever personal reasons; i expect the same respect in return in my own choice to do so.

So with all respect if some product is not explicitelly labbeled as a Vegan or Vegeterian product DO assume it does have some animal products; otherwise it would be labbled as such since "Vegan" and "Vegeterian" have a stable consumer base witch translates to "money" and no company worth the name would want to loose said money.

[Peelee]

No. There is no secret conspiracy to force vegans to eat meat and diery. if you're that worried about it choose products that are labeled vegeterian or vegan or whatever.

There are innumerable products that are vegetarian that are not labeled "vegetarian." Quick and easy example, Pringles are vegan. It's not really something they advertise. Even more fun with this example, a lot of Pringles flavors are not vegan. Again, unlabeled.

The question isn't "what's up with the secret conspiracy to force vegans to eat meat and dairy." The question, inasmuch as there is one, is "why do companies label things "natural ingredients" or "artificial ingredients" instead of listing the actual ingredients.

For vegetarians and vegans, they've made a choice so the onus is on them to look into what they purchase to make sure it fits with their choice. OP isn't saying he doesn't want to do that.he is explicitly already doing that. His issue is that even when doing that, meat products can be unlisted under an umbrella term. That's a fair complaint.

[Rynjin]

There is an argument to be made that what you don't know can't hurt you.

If there is a hidden micro-particle of a meat by-product hidden in the food you're eating, how does that affect you? You're not allergic to meat, so it's not going to harm you. If you're taking a moral stand against eating meat, isn't it really getting lost in the weeds finding the single (hypothetically) Kraft product that doesn't have meat in it even when purchasing said product means you're still supporting a business that profits significantly off of meat and meat by-products?

[factotum]

The question isn't "what's up with the secret conspiracy to force vegans to eat meat and dairy." The question, inasmuch as there is one, is "why do companies label things "natural ingredients" or "artificial ingredients" instead of listing the actual ingredients.


In the UK any packaged food has to have the full list of ingredients on it by law, is that not the case in the States?

[Evil DM Mark3]

There are innumerable products that are vegetarian that are not labeled "vegetarian." Quick and easy example, Pringles are vegan. It's not really something they advertise. Even more fun with this example, a lot of Pringles flavors are not vegan. Again, unlabeled.
Really? They are in the UK. (http://vegans.uk/what-can-vegans-eat/why-do-they-put-milk-in-everything/attachment/httpvegans-uk-19/)

In the UK any packaged food has to have the full list of ingredients on it by law, is that not the case in the States?
I think they do, but even in the UK there is a thing you can call Carmine, cochineal, cochineal extract or E120. There is another thing called Erythrosine or E127. They both do the same thing. Can you spot the animal product without google?

While a happy carnivore, I do have a lot of sympathy with food lableing issues due to my allergies. Companies are very bad at doing what is helpful unless it can net them sales, as per the Pringles example above.

[Brother Oni]

Companies are very bad at doing what is helpful unless it can net them sales, as per the Pringles example above.

Or cost them a lot of money, as Pret a Manger found out (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45731201).

[AMFV]

In answer to the OP and back on topic slightly. The way to figure out if something is likely to haven hidden animal products is to think through what is required to produce the food and at what steps they use animal products in those processes and at what steps you would see vegan or vegetarian alternatives in those processes. For example if a food would require an emulsifier and it doesn't contain animal products you'd probably see sunflower lecithin or gum of some kind as an ingredient. Basically the more you know about cooking the better you'll be able to figure out what's in something and why it's in something.

[Iruka]

Back to the OP: Three things I stumbled upon: Cheese, beer, and white sugar aren't typically vegan. Most white sugar is processed with bone char and while it doesn't get into the finished product, that's probably doesn't count as vegetarian or vegan by most standards. Cheese can be processed with vegetarian rennet, but isn't also. Beer might use fish product to clarify the end product.

The same goes for wine. Often some kind of animal product like gelatine is used for filtering.

[darkrose50]

It was always my understanding that the connection between digestive troubles and autism was one of the fabrications of discredited quack Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license after publishing several alleged "research" papers on autism that later turned out to be completely made up.

[1] Some people with autism have a chameleon-like ability that affords them the ability to blend in as neurotypical. It requires paying attention to those around you, paying attention to yourself, and paying attention to what and how you say something. It is like having a poker face on at all times. This requires being aware of others, being self aware, and self-monitoring.

[2] This chameleon-like ability (paying attention to others while being self aware and self monitoring) uses mental processing power, uses calories, and is tiring. This chameleon-like ability is often subconscious and is often on auto-pilot. In fact I did not know that I had this blending-in ability until I was told, and now I can better monitor it. Like driving, it eventually just becomes a skill that you do unconsciously. Many people with autism and this chameleon-like ability just assume that everyone thinks like this. I work over the phone because social interaction uses energy.

[3] If I reduce my mental processing power by being stressed or tired, then I may loose some portion of my chameleon-like ability (part of being self aware and self monitoring). Self monitoring may be lessoned, social skills may be effected, OCD may kick in, and what-have-you.

[4] So if someone (a) has autism and (b) has a chameleon-like ability to appear to be neurotypical, then (c) anything that effects mental processing power will cause [the noticeable appearance of] autism to be less under control (as in the ability to constantly monitor body-language, words spoken, tone, volume, word choice, and so on to appear to be neurotypical).

[5] So if gluten [or whatever] (a) negatively effects a person's mental processing power, (b) the individual had autism, and (c) the individual has a chameleon-like ability to appear to be neurotypical, then (d) taking gluten would effect mental processing power, and (e) it would appear to cause/effect [the noticeable appearance of] autism. Lack of sleep or other stressors may affect [the noticeable appearance of] autism in much the same way. Lack of sleep does not cause [the noticeable appearance of] autism in the population, obviously. Similar idea, I think.

[6] Now this chameleon-like ability to appear to be neurotypical is not universal, nor is it conscious. So removing gluten from the diet [or whatever is an intolerance, if anything] could really help some people with social interactions (and self-awareness overall) if these people have the chameleon-like ability. Removing gluten [or whatever is an intolerance, if anything] would help the chameleon-like ability, if the person with autism does not have enough of that skill to begin with.

I can see one mother swear on gluten-free and/or dairy-free diet up, down and sideways to another mother who tries it and does not get the desired social interactional results. The kid that changed his or her diet, has the chameleon-like ability, and showed increased desired behaviors, would not likely know why it helped, and would likely say that they were not doing anything differently, but likely they were unconsciously effected because they were more-well. To the mother (and just about everyone else) it would seem that the gluten caused the autism, when all it did was to noticeably lesson the chameleon-like ability to appear to be neurotypical . . . they still might be more-well.

I was quite surprised when I learned that folks do not often think about what they are thinking or what they are doing. It is shocking to me that being self aware is not even a thing for some people. Now this is not an on/off thing, as with most things it is on a spectrum.

It is somewhat common for actors to have autism.

Something negatively affecting mental clarity (such as stomach issues) could be the difference between having a job and not having a job. Something crazy like 80% of folks with autism do not have jobs. This is no small thing. They should keep looking into this.

[Willie the Duck]

Darkrose50, literally nothing you said there had anything to do with Bohandas's post.

Regardless, gluten will have an affect on one person, and not another, and the actual mechanism is whatever mental processing power inhibition it produces (however that happens) stifles ones ability to 'blend in as neurotypical?' Thank you, that's useful information.

[Imbalance]

[1] thru [6]

The more I read your descriptions, the more I wonder if I should have myself checked.

[darkrose50]

Darkrose50, literally nothing you said there had anything to do with Bohandas's post.

Regardless, gluten will have an affect on one person, and not another, and the actual mechanism is whatever mental processing power inhibition it produces (however that happens) stifles ones ability to 'blend in as neurotypical?' Thank you, that's useful information.

It addressed the "the connection between digestive troubles and autism".

Some studies say yes gluten is a factor, others say no gluten is not a factor, and still others say sometimes it is and sometimes it is not a factor. I am betting that folks are not approaching this from the right mind frame. I think that they first need to study how some people with autism can blend in as neurotypical. Then they should study how gluten effects the ability of that population to blend in (observable behaviors) as this is part of a self-monitoring skill-set could turn out to help folks in life.

Learning a skill all by yourself is not efficient, but if it could be better studied, understoodd, and taught . . . that would be something.


The more I read your descriptions, the more I wonder if I should have myself checked.

Check to see if your insurance pays for them. It was something like ~13 tests. I also bet that it was likely ~13 tests, because they could charge the insurance company for ~13-tests.

The main physiologist, it would seem, based his opinion on two things he asked right away (not included in the ~13 tests mentioned above). He told me to take a seat, and then called my name and ask some question to see if I looked at him while looking for a seat (I did not). He also asked my parents (part of the process is talking to you parents about you growing up) if I would line up my Hot Wheels in rows (I did). I am pretty sure that he made up his mind within the first few minutes of our meeting.

Knowing more about how your brain works and why you think differently than most people is cathartic.