On Gluten
November 1, 2014 9:14 AM   Subscribe

 
You've been waiting this whole time to make a post about potentially untrue warnings of intestinal calamity, haven't you.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:24 AM on November 1, 2014 [56 favorites]


epoonysterical
posted by jenkinsEar at 9:25 AM on November 1, 2014 [10 favorites]




April Peveteaux writes in her highly entertaining book “Gluten Is My Bitch.”

OTHER REJECTED TITLES:

"Gluten the hell out of here!"
"Gluten and Putin: A Post-Coldwar Analysis"
"Gluten for Punishment"
"GF: Not Sure if Girlfriend or Gluten Free? Find Out Inside"
posted by Fizz at 9:27 AM on November 1, 2014 [10 favorites]


OTHER REJECTED TITLES:

Gluten on the Ritz
posted by codacorolla at 9:31 AM on November 1, 2014 [19 favorites]


“As many as forty percent of us can’t properly process gluten, and the remaining sixty percent could be in harm’s way.”

Crap like this doesn't help anyone.

I learned today that malt vinegar isn't gluten free, while buying some delicious home made pickled onions. Which will later enhance some delicious and very gluten-y cheese sandwiches.
posted by biffa at 9:34 AM on November 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


Crap like this doesn't help anyone.

No shit.
posted by Fizz at 9:36 AM on November 1, 2014 [5 favorites]


Aw I thought this thread was going to be about the KPFA show Against the Grain

OTHER REJECTED TITLES:

Glutton for Gluten
Lootin' that Gluten
Glutisinal
Gluten for your Glutes: The Diet and Exercise regime that will leave you toned and incontonent
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:37 AM on November 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


Davis has said that bread today is nothing like the bread found on tables just fifty years ago: “What’s changed is that wheat’s adverse effects on human health have been amplified many-fold. . . .The version of ‘wheat’ we consume today is a product of genetic research. . . .
People like this make my brain sad.
posted by Justinian at 9:38 AM on November 1, 2014 [27 favorites]


The conduit would like to remind you that there is nothing to ....fear


From wheat


...and wheat by-products.
posted by The Whelk at 9:43 AM on November 1, 2014 [27 favorites]




I wasn't irritated by the gluten-free craze until it made it hard for me to find gluten. Stores have actually stopped stocking it. I had to special order it online and it's going to take a month to arrive.

Now I'm irritated.
posted by kyrademon at 10:22 AM on November 1, 2014 [7 favorites]


My adaptation of the Cook's Illustrated adaptation of that New York Times no-knead bread recipe has been improved by adding a bit of vital gluten to it. (I also had to drop the temps to 425/400 for my oven, now make the dough a little wetter -- no more burnt bottom crust!, have bumped the yeast to 1/2 teaspoon, and usually use whey drained from yogurt instead of lager and water for better flavour.)
posted by maudlin at 10:29 AM on November 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


Amy Schumer discusses gluten.
posted by fredludd at 10:29 AM on November 1, 2014


Michael Specter has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1998, and has written frequently about AIDS, T.B., and malaria in the developing world, as well as about agricultural biotechnology, avian influenza, the world’s diminishing freshwater resources, and synthetic biology

I see what they did there.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 10:40 AM on November 1, 2014


Amy Schumer discusses gluten.

This video is private.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:47 AM on November 1, 2014


Other rejected titles:

De glutimus non est disputandem
posted by Carillon at 10:52 AM on November 1, 2014 [11 favorites]


Here's what I was able to take away from the piece:
  1. GFers are a little crazy as a group. (You either already knew this or you're one of the crazy ones.)
  2. Some people don't tolerate FODMAPs particularly well. (You are probably not one of those people.)
  3. Celiac seems to be on the rise and we don't know why. (That's also seems to be true for many autoimmune diseases, but the article doesn't mention that.)
  4. You should bake your own bread, and sourdough is awesome. (You already knew this.)
Also, that closing anecdote from the baker reads like parody in a way that only The New Yorker can pull off with sincerity. Or maybe the humor is just too dry for me? Or the tone is too coy? I have to confess, I often have serious difficulties with The New Yorker's style.
posted by WCWedin at 11:05 AM on November 1, 2014 [12 favorites]


Americans love to classify food as either:

• Medicine
• Poison
posted by jeff-o-matic at 11:20 AM on November 1, 2014 [54 favorites]


You have no idea what gluten is.
And I saw an ad for Chilis craft burgers before the clip.

Eh, haven't read the article yet. And I probably don't know what gluten is. But I've always had a sensitive "tummy." So several years ago I started eating rice pasta because regular (wheat/semolina/durum) pasta didn't seem to digest well. Ditto on having more than a slice or so of regular pizza or a sandwich stuffed into really big rolls.

There are a few frozen/ boxed G-free pasta dinners I like, as well as certain brands of G-free blueberry muffin and cookies.

(Same with milk, it just seems the lactose-free type is better for me, plus I now love the sweeter taste of it.)
posted by NorthernLite at 11:31 AM on November 1, 2014


I was having terrible gastrointestinal problems until I realized I was allergic to carbon-14. Now I exclusively eat marine detritus harvested from deep sea sediment, which has a naturally lower content of carbon-14 compared to organic matter from the surface. Plus it's way more natural for your body to digest than the garbage they sell in grocery stores. It's completely changed my life. Even my acne has cleared up.
posted by dephlogisticated at 11:33 AM on November 1, 2014 [62 favorites]


Gluten free as a trend is just the newest way to say "FUCK POOR PEOPLE FOOD" but with the added benefit of borrowed medical legitimacy from genuine sufferers of actual gluten intolerance.

I'm glad to see more gluten free stuff because it increases availability of gluten free food to people who do suffer from celiac but a huge part of the fad right now is that it's a "health based" food movement with conspicuous rules and high cost of entry that lets you look down on all the dumb poors who don't know better that they're eating poison.
posted by Ferreous at 11:34 AM on November 1, 2014 [21 favorites]


I paid nothing for the metal container in which I store my adhesive paste. I guess you could say I got my...
posted by univac at 11:34 AM on November 1, 2014 [20 favorites]


>Amy Schumer discusses gluten.

This video is private.



Amy should be more careful where she discusses things. Vimeo?
posted by fredludd at 11:38 AM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


I started doing a low carb diet about 3 and a half months ago (it's worked remarkably well, but that's another story). And I found out something about seitan, which is almost all wheat gluten with a little bit of soy sauce for flavor. It's remarkably protein dense with close to zero carbs. And it's cheap, freezer-friendly, and easy to prepare.

The irony is that I never would have heard of it if it weren't for a passing reference in an article about the gluten-free trend.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 11:46 AM on November 1, 2014 [6 favorites]


That said if you ever need to entertain guests that are vegan/vegetarian and gluten free: Mujadara is a good go to dish. You can make a ton easily, it holds up well for serving, and multiple garnish plates always look good at dinner.
posted by Ferreous at 11:49 AM on November 1, 2014 [7 favorites]


That said if you ever need to entertain guests that are vegan/vegetarian and gluten free: Mujadara is a good go to dish. You can make a ton easily, it holds up well for serving, and multiple garnish plates always look good at dinner.

The only caveat being, onions are mentioned as one of the major FODMAPs in the article, so if that's what your guest is actually sensitive to, you're meeting their wishes but not their intent. Not that it's really your job.
posted by JauntyFedora at 11:53 AM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


I can only operate off the information given to me. If they say they're gluten free, I'll do that but I won't infer that means I can't use onions and garlic.
posted by Ferreous at 11:57 AM on November 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


Gluten-free vegans coming to dinner who don't eat onions and garlic is just not going to work out.
posted by colie at 12:03 PM on November 1, 2014 [25 favorites]


Just give them a plate of spinach and some sea salt and call it a day.
posted by Justinian at 12:10 PM on November 1, 2014 [6 favorites]


Like I said, not your job.
posted by JauntyFedora at 12:23 PM on November 1, 2014


Ferreous: "I'm glad to see more gluten free stuff because it increases availability of gluten free food to people who do suffer from celiac"

Except that does it really? I've eaten at two restaurants lately with disclaimers at the bottom of the menu that reads something like this: "Items labeled 'gluten free' are supposed to be free of gluten, though we use a mixed kitchen, mixed utensils, and most toppings or additions are not gluten free and the item itself is not guaranteed to be gluten free. Persons with medical issues related to gluten should contact a manager who will suggest possible alternatives."

That reads, to me, as though the restaurant owner straight up admits that the proprietors found the minimum possible legal definition of 'gluten free' (if one even exists), ordered food from their suppliers based on that, and then slapped the label anywhere it could possibly fit as a marketing tool. I don't have any gluten-related problems (that I know of) and I don't eat a gluten free diet but this was still just a bit annoying.
posted by fireoyster at 12:57 PM on November 1, 2014 [2 favorites]




Actually, having cooked where such a disclaimer was on the menu, the hedging is about legal liability. If you advertise as gluten free and someone gets sick, you're fucked. We'd do our best--new utensils, clean board if a GF order came in, etc--but unless you keep virtually a second kitchen it's simply not possible to guarantee 100% GF. It's like the notices you'll see "Processed in a facility/on a production line that also processes nuts." Yes, the product is nominally nut-free, but if you have to be super careful you should probably avoid it. Same thing with that notice. It's actually helpful to people with celiac disease; they know they need to be careful and can't just trust GF on the menu.

Hedging bets is actually the owner being responsible. Yes, calling something GF is in essence a marketing move, but they're also making sure nobody who really needs to worry is going to get sick.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:10 PM on November 1, 2014 [8 favorites]


The science on gluten, celiac, fodmaps and gluten sensitivity is still very much up in the air.
posted by Freen at 1:13 PM on November 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


That reads, to me, as though the restaurant owner straight up admits that the proprietors found the minimum possible legal definition of 'gluten free' (if one even exists)

Fun fact: Up until August, there wasn't one. Here's the FDA's new definition. Note that restaurants have more leeway than packaged food manufacturers.

And it's about time the FDA did something- I have a friend with fairly bad Celiac's who, a few months back, picked up a bag of "Gluten-free" chips without reading the fine print, and had a very unpleasant evening as a result.
posted by damayanti at 1:15 PM on November 1, 2014


Working in a restaurant and trying to accommodate the current allergy of the month was always fun when I worked in a little pizza joint.

No cheese because they're lactose intolerant. No onions because it makes them sick (sorry the pizza sauce has onions). No mushrooms because their allergic to mushrooms. &c. Luckily we didn't have to deal with gluten-free. The place was too small and we'd just apologize.
posted by jgaiser at 1:17 PM on November 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


I found it odd that he rejected a lot of the gluten woo but just couldn't seem to give up on his suspicion that there is something wrong with vital wheat gluten. Otherwise, very informative article. I did not know the rates of Celiac were increasing.

The whole gluten free craze does make me really extra enjoy seitan sometimes. Just looking down at a big plate of mock sesame chicken and realizing, "This seitan is the satan of the gluten free religion." And then dumping on a heap of sriracha and digging in.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:27 PM on November 1, 2014 [9 favorites]


I'm glad to see more gluten free stuff because it increases availability of gluten free food to people who do suffer from celiac


And it's increased the importation of much, much better European options. Also restaurants generally do not just pick the croutons off salads now or try to scrape off the bun residue from burgers. I know someone with a wheat allergy and it's certainly made life easier, even if truly GF restaurant options are still quite rare (though appreciated.)
posted by jetlagaddict at 1:36 PM on November 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


The little demo with the vital wheat gluten left to sit in the Coke was hilarious. As if not dissolving in Coke is dispositive of anything meaningful.
posted by yellowcandy at 1:59 PM on November 1, 2014 [12 favorites]


Some people don't tolerate FODMAPs particularly well. (You are probably not one of those people.)

Why do you add the last part? The takeaway of the FODMAP study they cite seemed to be that most of the "gluten-sensitive" folks who didn't test positive for celiac (i.e. the population they were investigating) overwhelmingly responded positively to the FODMAP-free diet.
posted by dialetheia at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2014 [4 favorites]


I have to confess, I often have serious difficulties with The New Yorker's style.
As many as 40% of us might be New Yorker- intolerant.
posted by MtDewd at 2:47 PM on November 1, 2014 [11 favorites]


Why do you add the last part? The takeaway of the FODMAP study they cite seemed to be that most of the "gluten-sensitive" folks who didn't test positive for celiac (i.e. the population they were investigating) overwhelmingly responded positively to the FODMAP-free diet.

Because most people don't fit into the population that was under study, and lots of people eat and enjoy things that sometimes make them feel a little uncomfortable afterward. I don't consider the latter a valid basis for the gluten-free fad come-again that FODMAP concerns are threatening to become.
posted by WCWedin at 2:48 PM on November 1, 2014


For people who do have auto-immune issues that seem to respond to food restrictions (like the one I'm married to), GF can be a sort of mostly-safe option. It would be nice to have actual explanations that also allowed people to eat wheat, but the science is just not there yet to help them. All he knows is that he felt terrible and was always in the bathroom in the days when he was eating wheat, and isn't now. Maybe wheat is an innocent victim in that fight, but there's not much he can do about it.

Diet-wise, most commercial breads and gluteny things tend to come with lots of sugar too, so cutting them out provides that assistance and has results for many people, even if the gluten wasn't the main/real culprit. But yeah, GF cake is not going to make you thin. It's mostly sugar. The high-protein diet books do mostly tell you to watch out for that.

In conclusion, GF is a land of contrasts and we still have no fucking idea how our gut biology works.
posted by emjaybee at 3:53 PM on November 1, 2014 [5 favorites]


I know a different guy named David Perlmutter who probably doesn't care much for this "forty percent of us can't process gluten" guy.
posted by aaronetc at 3:55 PM on November 1, 2014


Working in a restaurant that tries to accommodate people with food sensitivities can get trying for sure. Sometimes you have to throw your hands up and say "sorry we can't do that" and deal with the flak. I'd get people who wanted me to literally replace every board, serving tool, and knife on the line during a rush because they were "deathly allergic to gluten" yet they would come into a restaurant that advertised it baked all of its bread and pastries in house. I get the sense that anyone who was truly allergic to that degree wouldn't take that risk of eating at a place like that.

Then again you don't need food sensitivities to be a huge pain in the ass to kitchen staff, I'm looking at you people who don't understand why they can't order off menu items despite the fact that the ingredients are technically in house.
posted by Ferreous at 3:56 PM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: a land of contrasts and we still have no fucking idea how our gut biology works
posted by Fizz at 4:04 PM on November 1, 2014


A lot of the food fads derive their societal vigor from occult strategies for managing anxiety. I see a lot of unfortunate people with physioneurotic sensitivities and psychosomatic symptoms who are routinely made miserable by their truculent bowels. They feel constipated or diarrheaic and fear having no apparent control over this. Their gas production and release is shaming and upsetting, both consciously and unconsciously. They desperately seek concrete, somatic ways to control their bowels, through fad diets or miracle supplements. The saddest thing I've seen for food issues are people, usually survivors of chronic childhood sexual trauma, who have developed complex functional GI motility disorders. For many of them, the sensation of food entering or feces leaving their bodies through sites of former abuse is destabilizing, and they develop disordered eating or defecation behaviors. They have often had multiple ex-lap surgeries and now have internal scarring, or adhesions. Some of them have even given up eating completely, relying on PICCs, TPN and enemas to decontextualize and abstract away their feeding and elimination.

A century ago we had the Fletcherism total nutritionism food fad. Then recently we had its conceptual successor, Soylent. These things come and go, like weather.
posted by meehawl at 4:21 PM on November 1, 2014 [5 favorites]


Despite getting in on the first wave of the fad, my chain of restaurants named "Yer Durn Tooten', There's No Gluten!" Failed miserably.
posted by Floydd at 5:11 PM on November 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


Ah, I had wondered what had happened with that treasure trove of blood samples from the 50's. Here is a question, has anyone cross correlated the rise in autoimmune issues to the the use of bottled baby formula? I was having a discussion, years ago, with my friend who is a NICU nurse and she had mentioned that formula can "coat" a stomach and cause digestive issues. For extra thought, changes to a vital ingredient in the formula, cow's milk.
posted by jadepearl at 5:16 PM on November 1, 2014


I wonder how they did a control for the study of celiac in the 50s. My grandfather had celiac disease and nearly died before they figured out what was wrong in his early teens. Seems to me that sampling from the Air Force introduces a bias in that these are typically healthy men without the chronic digestion issues and psoriasis my grandfather had from gluten exposure.

Is there actually a higher incidence or are we just better at catching it now?
posted by mikesch at 6:55 PM on November 1, 2014 [7 favorites]


That seems like a pretty good question.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:10 PM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


Gluten free as a trend is just the newest way to say "FUCK POOR PEOPLE FOOD"

Sure, if all you want to eat is Glutino pretzels and Amy's frozen pizzas. But rice, beans, bananas, peanut butter, those chicken legs that got marked down because they're out of date tomorrow, frozen and canned vegetables, that cheap ass store brand jelly, cheap corn chips, store brand salsa, popcorn, those apples that are on sale right now because they're in season, the cheap boxes of clementines in the middle of the winter, are all gluten free (most of the time; read your ingredients lists; etc.) Convenience and fast food is expensive no matter whether it's got gluten in it or not.

I am sorry some folks who eat gluten free are a pain in the ass. Then again, I'm sorry a lot of people period are a pain in the ass. I am not sorry that gluten free has gotten trendy, because it means that I can eat out most of the time without being told "gluten what?" and I stand a much lower chance of getting sick than I used to. Better labeling and ingredients lists mean that my friends and loved ones with legit allergies (running the gamut from shrimp to corn to yeast) are less likely to get sick from eating, something we all have to do every day.

And I beg y'all, don't stand downwind of me when I've accidentally had barley; it isn't pretty, and neither are the next couple of days of feeling like I have the flu. For some of us, gluten is a real issue, and if a bunch of folks who don't actually have issues have gotten me better food options, then so be it.

And get off my lawn, too. ;)
posted by joycehealy at 7:34 PM on November 1, 2014 [10 favorites]


Is there actually a higher incidence or are we just better at catching it now?

That's what they were looking for in the Air Force recruit sampling. If the prevalence of celiac disease is currently 10%, and that's what it's always been, then it should have been close to that in the sample, because they were looking at antibodies, not existing diagnoses.

I get what you're saying about bias in the sample, but they did look at 9,000 blood samples and only came up with a .2% celiac rate.

Which is why, I think, the author was right to keep looking at vital wheat gluten, because he's looking at the argument that there's an environmental cause for the increase in celiac disease.
posted by jaguar at 7:52 PM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


I learned today that malt vinegar isn't gluten free,

Well ...
posted by maxsparber at 7:53 PM on November 1, 2014


If the prevalence of celiac disease is currently 10%, and that's what it's always been, then it should have been close to that in the sample, because they were looking at antibodies, not existing diagnoses.

The issue is, was the guy who had severe stomach issues every time he ate white bread in the 1950s joining the air force as often as other people were? It's not a random sample of citizens, it's a sample of men fit for military duty. I generally operate on the assumption scientists are smart people who notice this stuff if idiots like me do, but I think it's worth verifying in this case.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:55 PM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


I'm still annoyed at the naturally gluten-free products that have now all adopted "Gluten Free!" labels. Tito's Vodka, I'm glaring in your direction.
posted by jaguar at 7:56 PM on November 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


has anyone cross correlated the rise in autoimmune issues to the the use of bottled baby formula?

In the US at least, breastfeeding has increased since the 70s, so the rise in autoimmune issues doesn't necessarily correlate with formula use.
posted by devinemissk at 7:57 PM on November 1, 2014


This article expands the explanation of the study and is very annoyingly set up so that I can't copy and paste the relevant bit, but says that the researchers in that study also looked at samples of contemporaries not in the Air Force and came up with a 0.8% rate of celiac disease.
posted by jaguar at 8:00 PM on November 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


Here's the actual study, and I think I'm retracting my previous comment (and also retracting the earlier comment that said 10%, because it's actually 1%). They looked at groups of people born around 1930 but not in the Air Force as well as young people at the time of the study who were the same age as the Air Force group at the time of the blood draws, and said that both old and young people today had a four-time higher rate of celiac than the Air Force recruits. I'm not seeing any recognition that the AF sample might be biased toward healthy people.

They do cite a Finnish study showing a doubling of prevalence from 1978 to 2000, which looks like it dealt with a more representative sample of the population for both groups.
posted by jaguar at 8:11 PM on November 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


I'm vegetarian and I eat a ton of gluten. My girlfriend eats anything except gluten. We are the worst dinner guests ever.
posted by freakazoid at 9:14 PM on November 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


EVERYONE IS GETTING GIN THEN YOU CAN EAT THE OLIVES.
posted by The Whelk at 9:42 PM on November 1, 2014 [4 favorites]


I want vodka.

And no vermouth.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:55 PM on November 1, 2014


So you don't want martini then.
posted by Carillon at 12:17 AM on November 2, 2014


Just an olive-flavored shot of ethyl alcohol coming up.
posted by maxsparber at 7:28 AM on November 2, 2014


I kind of prefer the vodka to flavor the olive, not the other way around.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:49 AM on November 2, 2014


And just pass me the whole jar of cocktail onions, I will eat them by themselves.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:50 AM on November 2, 2014


So you don't want martini then.

Obviously. He's using vodka

I'll fight you for those onions, Drinky Die.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:53 AM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


dialetheia: Why do you add the last part? The takeaway of the FODMAP study they cite seemed to be that most of the "gluten-sensitive" folks who didn't test positive for celiac (i.e. the population they were investigating) overwhelmingly responded positively to the FODMAP-free diet.

If it's the study I'm thinking of, wasn't the takeaway that people felt better when you put them on a low FODMAP diet and then told them so, and then got worse when you told them they were being put on a regular diet even if you didn't actually change what they ate at all? That's a hallmark of the placebo effect at work.

I've suspected for a while now that the gluten-free thing (for non-celiac sufferers, at least) has all the hallmarks of the placebo effect; the effect is subjective and hard to quantify, the treatment has loads of publicity behind it, it's time-consuming enough you can't forget about it, and completely changing your whole diet is likely to make you feel somewhat different (which convinces you it has an effect). I would really, really like to see a large study with 'gluten-sensitive' people either fed gluten or not in a double-blind trial. This is such a big concern now that it's certainly warranted, and it would be great to resolve it one way or the other.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:09 PM on November 2, 2014


wasn't the takeaway that people felt better when you put them on a low FODMAP diet and then told them so, and then got worse when you told them they were being put on a regular diet even if you didn't actually change what they ate at all?

No, they didn't find a placebo effect for low FODMAPs, they found a nocebo effect for telling the patients they were eating gluten. It's a subtle but important difference. The study is here (pdf). Their findings for the low FODMAP diet being effective in treating symptoms attributed to gluten sensitivity were actually pretty clear: "Reduction of FODMAPs in their diets uniformly reduced gastrointestinal symptoms and fatigue in the run-in period, after which they were minimally symptomatic."
posted by dialetheia at 1:06 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


maybe gluten fear is new, but people have been bragging about their diets forever. I mean, thousands of years ago, "one grain of rice per day" was the most healthy way to be.
posted by rebent at 4:37 PM on November 2, 2014


Actually there is a really catty line in The Women, a movie from the 30s, about a gluten free muffin.
posted by The Whelk at 4:52 PM on November 2, 2014 [2 favorites]


No onions because it makes them sick (sorry the pizza sauce has onions).

I'm probably going to burn in hell for this (or at least get a lot of flack) but I ise the allergic excuse at places that are bad at honoring my "no tomatoes" request. I can't stand fresh tomatoes, and am sick of getting food with nasty tomato guts ruining the flavor. If I'm "allergic", it's taken more seriously, and if they screw up, the food is usually remade instead of just picking the tomatoes off. Because thanks guys, I didn't think of that.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 5:33 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


You're burning in the private hells of everyone who cooks for a living.

The thing is, people who come in and say they're allergic to tomatoes, or whatever, when what they mean is "I do not like that thing" are setting up a boy who cried wolf situation. We know that you're not allergic to oranges (serious thing I have seen on a ticket). We still have to act as though you do, but it does lessen the belief when it comes to people who really do have allergies.

Honestly, if you don't like tomatoes? Don't order things that have tomatoes in them. They aren't ruining the flavour; in a restaurant dish everything is composed to be part of the flavour palette, and so the tomatoes are actually an integral part of the flavour. It may be a flavour you don't like, that's fine, but it's just silly to not like X and then order things that contain X. You are in fact not getting what the chef intends when you do this.

You are also pissing off the terribly paid and overworked kitchen staff, because you are changing everything about how we work. This sets up potentials for everything to go pear-shaped behind the kitchen doors, because we are forced to work outside of the established systems.

I get that you want to eat whatever you want to eat, and fine, at the end of the day you're the one with the money. But every time you do this, know that the kitchen staff are cursing your name, that you are weakening the belief for people who actually have allergies, and that you are potentially creating a worse dining experience for everyone downstream of your order.

All that said, when I get a subbed order I still give it the same amount of care and attention that I give to every plate that passes my hands.

If a restaurant won't honour your request, stop going there and tell them why.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:08 PM on November 2, 2014 [3 favorites]


If a restaurant cannot remove tomato from an order, they should tell the customer that. If the customer must tell the kitchen that they are allergic to an item to get it made without, instead of simply having it removed at the last minute or scraped off or whatever, that is the restaurant's fault. And if restaurant staffers decided it's all bullshit and just sort of pretend to address food allergies, sooner or later they are going to court for causing potentially deadly anaphylaxis in a customer.

Please do not tell us how a restaurant works. It's beside the point from a customer's perspective. Either you honor a customer's request or you tell them you cannot. Everything else is crap service.
posted by maxsparber at 6:17 PM on November 2, 2014 [4 favorites]


I seem to be the only person in the thread who works in restaurants, so... I'm going to tell you how they work, yes.

And it looks like you missed my last point, where I said: "If a restaurant won't honour your request, stop going there and tell them why."

People claiming allergies are actively making things more difficult both for the people working in the restaurant and for the diners who actually genuinely have allergies. I know that because I actually work in restaurants, which is why I am telling you how restaurants work.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:21 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


People claiming allergies are actively making things more difficult both for the people working in the restaurant and for the diners who actually genuinely have allergies.

If and only if servers or other staff take it on themselves to decide who is "really allergic" to anything. Why not just take people at their word? What difference should it make whether you personally believe them or not?

This is the part that's problematic: "but it does lessen the belief when it comes to people who really do have allergies." That part isn't on the diner, it's on the person who lessens their belief.
posted by dialetheia at 6:26 PM on November 2, 2014


It's actually on the person who is lying. Again: boy who cried wolf.

I don't disagree that a restaurant which won't sub or won't communicate if they can't or won't is a stupid restaurant. They should go out of business--which is why you should stop going there and tell them why.

The fact is, when we get transparently stupid 'allergies' (actual thing that happened: "I can't have any garlic or onions or anything, I'm allergic to everything in that family." "The salad dressing contains shallots, but if you order this other--" "No no, that's fine,") it is the completely normal human response to roll your eyes every time you hear outlandish shit and believe it less. And that is a problem for the people who truly do have allergies that are rare. Again: boy who cried wolf. This is how humans are.

Again, I see 'allergy' on a ticket and I will be diligent. Not everyone will. So maybe it's a good idea to not lie to restaurant staff about allergies you don't have because that is going to cause problems downstream for people who actually do have them. If the restaurant will not or cannot make food to your specifications, order something without the ingredient you don't like, or inform management why you will not be spending any money there anymore.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:36 PM on November 2, 2014


This is the part that's problematic: "but it does lessen the belief when it comes to people who really do have allergies." That part isn't on the diner, it's on the person who lessens their belief.

That's really not fair, because people who work in restaurants live in the same world as the rest of us, which is a world in which many many many people talk about how they claim to have allergies they do not actually have.
posted by jaguar at 6:36 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


I mean, to go back to gluten, people with celiac disease really and truly cannot eat anything that came anywhere close to anywhere near something with gluten. If people without actual autoimmune disorders continually assure the waitstaff that their "gluten allergy" won't be triggered by cross-contamination, they're training the waitstaff to ignore or dismiss the actual concerns of people with significant issues. Waitstaff and kitchen staff are not trained rheumatologists or allergists with perfectly updated understanding of how autoimmune disorders or allergies work, and training them to discount anyone claiming to have allergies is unethical.
posted by jaguar at 6:41 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


"I can't have any garlic or onions or anything, I'm allergic to everything in that family."

That isn't too crazy, people who are sensitive to FODMAPs can be very sensitive to chunks of alliums and that can cause major gastro pain, but they still might be OK with a tiny amount in a salad dressing. Onions & garlic are huge triggers for FODMAP issues.

Anyway, this is exactly why I don't think it's anyone's (least of all a server's) job to decide who's "lying" or not about what they want to eat - the actual biology can be quite varied and a lot of it is still up in the air, so even if you get customers who you might think are stupid, the safe and decent thing to do is assume that everyone is telling you the truth about how seriously they don't want to eat that food. The "boy who cried wolf" wasn't explicitly paying for a service that he expected not to make him feel shitty.
posted by dialetheia at 6:43 PM on November 2, 2014


Have worked in food service. There is no excuse for not assuming the wolves are always real.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:44 PM on November 2, 2014


(and there is a special place in hell for people who put tomatoes on my hoagies)
posted by Drinky Die at 6:47 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


That isn't too crazy, people who are sensitive to FODMAPs can be very sensitive to chunks of alliums and that can cause major gastro pain, but they still might be OK with a tiny amount in a salad dressing.

The salad dressing in question was based on pureed shallots. They would in fact eat far more allium in a serving of salad dressing than they would garlic or onions in any given pasta on the menu.

the safe and decent thing to do is assume that everyone is telling you the truth about how seriously they don't want to eat that food

I have said twice that in fact I do this. Not everyone does, because: cooks are underpaid and overworked and are uninterested in the lies people tell so they don't have to taste a friggin' tomato.

Again, your sane options, in order of desirability:

1) Stop ordering things that contain ingredients you don't like
2) Inform the server that you do not want X in your food
3) If your food arrives with X, have them remake the dish
4) If they can't be trusted, stop giving them your money
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:47 PM on November 2, 2014 [2 favorites]


I seem to be the only person in the thread who works in restaurants, so... I'm going to tell you how they work, yes.

I worked in restaurants for a decade.
posted by maxsparber at 7:08 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


I said ' seem,' because the responses I am getting very much seem like they are from non-industry people.

If you were FOH though, your response makes sense, because all you guys do is convey the messages regarding orders--you're not the people rolling your eyes because you have to cook for some precious snowflake who's 'allergic' to gluten but rye and barley are perfectly fine.

I mean, seriously... I am telling you how things actually are on the line and how we who cook actually respond to the increasing and endless stream of false allergy claims, and how they cause trouble for people who actually do have allergies. You can argue for better training as much as you like, and I won't disagree. You can say that cooks must still be diligent, and I absolutely won't disagree. You can say that servers and cooks shouldn't decide who is an is not allergic, and I don't disagree.

I will completely disagree, however, that it is even remotely reasonable for customers to lie about their allergies. Again: boy who cried wolf.

Sick of repeating myself so that's my last comment on the issue.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:15 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


If you were FOH though,

Back of the house. You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions.
posted by maxsparber at 7:18 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


Oh, and allergic to gluten.
posted by maxsparber at 7:18 PM on November 2, 2014


I said 'if.' That is not an assumption.

And I'm allergic to nuts, what's your point?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:19 PM on November 2, 2014


That if I went on an extended monologue about how hard life is in the kitchen when you mentioned your nut allergy and called you a special snowflake, you'd think I was terrible at customer service. And you would be right.
posted by maxsparber at 7:24 PM on November 2, 2014 [2 favorites]


you're not the people rolling your eyes because you have to cook for some precious snowflake who's 'allergic' to gluten but rye and barley are perfectly fine.

To be clear, it's this kind of language I object to - what difference does it make whether you think they're "lying" to you or how "precious" they are? Why is it any of your business to pass judgment on this at all? I continue to think that it's the eye-rollers who are doing the most damage here. The occasional tomato-deceit notwithstanding, most people who ask for these accommodations (I'm not one of them by the way, since that seems to matter to you) are trying in earnest to protect their health & well-being, even if they go about it in ways that might seem rather silly.
posted by dialetheia at 7:35 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


the safe and decent thing to do is assume that everyone is telling you the truth about how seriously they don't want to eat that food.

Yes, but I think the issue is the number of people who tell you that they are allergic to that food and yet mysteriously are able to eat it in certain circumstances.
posted by jaguar at 7:36 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


So? Still none of anyone's business. For all any of us know (I'm certainly not their doctor), those mysterious circumstances are perfectly valid.
posted by dialetheia at 7:39 PM on November 2, 2014


But they create a situation in which the next person who claims to be "allergic" to allium is assumed to be ok with the shallot dressing. It's a stupid ploy that works for individuals but fucks up the system overall. "I don't like garlic and onions, but I'm ok with shallots" is a way of getting what you want and not getting what you don't, without reinforcing the idea that people who claim allergies are lying about them.

And, as fffm has said, a chef who disregards a patron's stated dislikes is a bad chef, and the patron who asked for accommodation should not return. But fearing that a chef will not take one's dislikes seriously is not an okay reason to lie about one's allergies.
posted by jaguar at 7:43 PM on November 2, 2014 [2 favorites]


you're not the people rolling your eyes because you have to cook for some precious snowflake who's 'allergic' to gluten but rye and barley are perfectly fine.

To be honest my mother is allergic to wheat and she usually says "gluten free" now because she has way fewer problems that way, but she will clarify if there are questions. Explaining what wheat actually is and the difference between celiac and a wheat protein allergy is...well, her experience has been that most people are not clear on this concept.

I think there's a difference between that (or other nuances/intolerances) and someone saying they're gluten-free but indulging in a graham-cracker crust cheesecake or an after dinner biscotto, or someone who says "absolutely no onions, I'm allergic" when they really just don't like raw onions but will eat them in raw when pureed in sauces or dressings. It is confusing for everyone involved to deal with shifting patterns throughout a meal.
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:48 PM on November 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


Oh sure, I'm not arguing that anyone should lie about their allergies - only that servers and other staff shouldn't ever assume that anybody is lying no matter how precious they think the diner is or how convoluted the request. If the problem is that certain behaviors make people take dietary requirements less seriously, the solution is pretty clearly for everyone to just take those requests seriously across the board without making personal judgments about circumstances they don't necessarily understand.
posted by dialetheia at 7:54 PM on November 2, 2014


If you claim to have an allergy to avoid getting food you don't want/like you're being shitty and manipulative. Not much more to it than that.
posted by Ferreous at 9:53 PM on November 2, 2014 [4 favorites]


Yes, but some people are going to simplify food intolerance as allergy because they don't feel that anyone needs to know their whole medical history and whether they're going to have anaphylaxis, hives, rash, mouth ulcers, explosive diarrhea, or migraine just to motivate them to be honest about food contents. I have neither allergies nor intolerance, and I wouldn't claim either to address a food preference, but it's indefensible to say, "Welp, some people are shitty manipulative liars, so you're going to have to accept physical risk because all restaurant staff have stopped believing in allergies."
posted by gingerest at 9:31 PM on November 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


Yes, but some people are going to simplify food intolerance as allergy

Not what anyone here is talking about. Lying by rebranding a preference as an allergy is what we are talking about.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:50 PM on November 3, 2014


We're actially talking about the result, whch is apparently that restuarant employees will take it upon themselves to be medical professionals and decide not to take allergies seriously because of the impossible-to-calculate number of people who lie about allergies.
posted by maxsparber at 7:10 AM on November 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


It's not about restaurant workers playing doctor, it's about patrons who say that they're allergic to gluten but can eat small amounts of flour, over and over and over again, which then becomes the default assumption about what a "gluten allergy" means.

I've heard waitstaff refusing to serve potatoes to patrons who are gluten-intolerant because the waitstaff didn't know that potatoes don't have gluten. I know that many nicer restaurants have extremely wonderful staff who are very knowledgeable about food in general and the restaurant's food in particular, but that's not true in every diner, fast-casual, or even high-end place. Being totally knowledgeable and up-to-date on all potential food allergies is not something required for restaurant staff, and patrons lying about allergies just muddies the water even further.
posted by jaguar at 7:26 AM on November 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


We're actially talking about the result, whch is apparently that restuarant employees will take it upon themselves to be medical professionals and decide not to take allergies seriously

Nobody in this thread has said that thing, please stop mischaracterizing what has been said.

And, seriously, we are discussing people who lie about allergies when what they mean is they don't like icky tomatoes, and how that has actual negative effects on people who actually are allergic or intolerant of various foods, not to mention how that does absolutely nothing to actually make a restaurant reform its practices by not putting icky tomatoes in your food when you ask them not to.

Lying about what you actually physically cannot eat is a lose-lose-lose situation for everyone. Just stop ordering stuff that contains things you don't like, FFS.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:27 AM on November 4, 2014


Lying about what you actually physically cannot eat is a lose-lose-lose situation for everyone. Just stop ordering stuff that contains things you don't like, FFS.

It is literally impossible to know if somebody is lying to you, so that's not actually what we're talking about. One person in this thread said they did it. That's it. There's no evidence of a vast conspiracy to lie about allergies.

I have a gluten allergy. I don't know if I have gotten gluten in my food until the next day, when my intestines have started to bleed. It's very likely that people are deciding I must not actually have an allergy, because there is a little flour in the soup that went unmentioned, and I didn't blow up like a balloon and have to be carted out on a stretcher.

The default position should be "Nobody is lying," not "one person on a webpage said they lied, and therefore that's all that needs to be discussed." It doesn't actually need to be discussed at all. Just treat anyone who says they have an allergy as though they have an allergy and let karma take care of the liars. It's really not the job of the staff to determine who is telling the truth or not. If a restaurant says they are willing to address food allergies, that's a service they need to provide for everyone, whether the people actually have the allergy or not. If it is too much for them to do, they can say "We can't accommodate food allergies here," and that's entirely fair. I don't expect steakhouses to provide vegetarian dishes, I don't expect bakeries to provide gluten free options (although I love it when they do), and I always ask if I can be accommodated and accept it when I can't.

Trust me, whatever a pain in the ass you think it is to deal with people with food allergies, you have no idea how much a pain in the ass it is to have the allergy. I have been having an allergic reaction for a week because somebody didn't think they needed to check if chips were actual corn chips or were made with wheat, and I would rather just not have eaten those chips, and I don't care if one person once upon a time lied about being allergic to gluten. They didn't cause this allergic reaction -- the restaurant did, by not providing the customer service they promised.
posted by maxsparber at 8:51 AM on November 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


I'm certainly not disagreeing with anything you're saying, maxsparber, and I have friends and family with various allergies and intolerances and I want them to be able to eat safely.

I also have people with whom I have dined who have created all sorts of confusion for waitstaff by making weird claims about how allergies (all allergies, not just their own) work. It's not just one person doing that. And it pisses me off when people do make shit up in an effort to sound either more knowledgeable than they are or to make their preferences seem more important than they are, because it contributes to a much more laissez-faire attitude on everyone's part and makes dining out dangerous for people with actual intolerances.
posted by jaguar at 9:38 AM on November 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


I also have people with whom I have dined who have created all sorts of confusion for waitstaff by making weird claims about how allergies (all allergies, not just their own) work.

Yeah, I don't like that either. I think people should not confuse waitstaff.
posted by maxsparber at 9:48 AM on November 4, 2014


Trust me, whatever a pain in the ass you think it is to deal with people with food allergies, you have no idea how much a pain in the ass it is to have the allergy

As I said above, I am allergic to nuts. As in, I don't (just) get digestive upset; I run the risk of anaphylaxis--there's a reason I have an Epi-Pen in my pocket at all times. Believe me, I know exactly what a pain in the ass it is, and as jaguar has pointed out, the proliferation of people claiming they have allergies when what they have is dislikes contributes to a generally laissez-faire attitude that could get me killed.

It's not just 'stop fucking with the kitchen' that fuels my contempt for these liars, it's my own personal safety.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:38 AM on November 4, 2014


I also have people with whom I have dined who have created all sorts of confusion for waitstaff by making weird claims about how allergies (all allergies, not just their own) work.

But why is waitstaff reliant on unreliable anecdotal customer explanations for their allergy education? Why isn't this stuff a basic part of the legally-mandated food safety training that everyone already has to go through?
posted by dialetheia at 11:40 AM on November 4, 2014


I mean, I have an allergy to seafood, but it's not that serious and I'm substantially more allergic to fresh fish than I am to fish sauce, which I've never had a reaction to. The explanation I have is that it's a result of changes to the denatured protein structure as it breaks down, but I can't give a better explanation because I don't have one and it's generally easy to avoid fresh seafood anyway. (Surprise salmon being less common than surprise flour roux.) I try to avoid phrasing it as an allergy because I know it's confusing to say "but if there's some fish sauce, that's okay-- cooked shrimp is not." I am not going to go into shock (yet!) because my sushi rice was next to some sashimi, but someone with a peanut allergy might if their noodles brushed up against some residue.

I know more about wheat (and why those with wheat allergies can often eat barley and rye) than I do about my own actual allergy. Allergies (and autoimmune disorders like celiac) are complicated, complicated things. Cooking is also pretty complicated in a lot of places, especially if there is a language barrier or if recipes are changed frequently. I don't know what kind of training food safety mandates on allergies, but I'm not going to get mad at a waiter who doesn't know every variant of intolerance or allergy-- I am going to get mad if they ignore me or don't ask questions in the kitchen about the ingredients.
posted by jetlagaddict at 12:44 PM on November 4, 2014


I'm not going to get mad at a waiter who doesn't know every variant of intolerance or allergy

Oh, absolutely - that's exactly why the default assumption should be to take those food preferences very seriously and not extrapolate from one diner to the next. I'm just saying that blaming some diners for saying confusing things about their allergies/intolerances is misplacing the responsibility of education here; the onus for food safety education shouldn't fall on the diner.
posted by dialetheia at 1:32 PM on November 4, 2014


Ideally, yes, people should rely on training. In reality, however, people often believe anecdotes over data. Waiters don't normally go into food service because they're really interested in how the immune system works.

I mean, I absolutely agree with you and others about how it should work, but it's all dependent on lots of human beings with their own biases and varying levels of intelligence and training, so I think advising patrons that lying about allergies has the potential to muck things up for more-vulnerable people is reasonable.

It shouldn't muck things up, but in reality it does.
posted by jaguar at 1:57 PM on November 4, 2014


I think we basically agree, we're just placing the "that's the way it is" benefit of the doubt in different places. My argument is that people are just going to be unclear about their food issues, that's human nature, especially when talking about your embarrassing health problems with a total stranger in public - and even if the person described their issue perfectly, there's no telling whether the server will understand it or remember it correctly.

Since there are already education systems in place to make sure that these folks have current info about food safety, it seems more practical to me to include this sort of "allergies & intolerances are very confusing, please give everyone the benefit of the doubt no matter how stupid you might think they are, each diner has their own situation that can't be applied to other diners, etc" information in that training so that they know not to rely on random diner anecdotes. That seems far more doable than convincing people to basically bring their medical records with them when they go out to eat so that the server knows the full medical justification & circumstances behind "no onions, please, I'm intolerant" and can be properly educated for the next diner.
posted by dialetheia at 2:14 PM on November 4, 2014


That seems far more doable than convincing people to basically bring their medical records with them when they go out to eat so that the server knows the full medical justification & circumstances behind "no onions, please, I'm intolerant" and can be properly educated for the next diner.

I don't think anyone's arguing that diners should have to justify their preferences or allergies. I, at least, was just saying that claiming to have allergies you don't have often has a real-world effect of confusing or blase-ing wait- and kitchen-staff, even if in an ideal world it shouldn't, so diners should be ethical about not lying about having allergies.
posted by jaguar at 5:29 PM on November 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


I really don't feel bad lying at made to order food places. Tomato allergies are real, so if it gets them looking close at what they're doing, great. It's actually only one chain I do this at, and they always fuck up the order in some way. So if this gets them looking more closely, great.

As for eating food you're allergic to, I have an intolerance to crab. I vomit it up within two hours of eating it. It's not a true allergy, but it's easier and less graphic to explain that way. Yet, I can sometimes tolerate food with a little bit of crab in it. And sometimes I just miss the taste, so say fuck it, eat it, and deal with the consequences. I'm really quite fine after I've expelled all the crab from my stomach. Not that I do it often, but once every year or two, I have to give it a try and remind myself that no, crab and my stomach repel one another.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:52 PM on November 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


« Older "Mabel! Mabel! Mabel! Mabel! Mabel! Mabel! Mabel!...   |   “He always has a flask of tea in his pocket.” Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments