| This piece may be slightly too niche for the bulk of you, but it is something I feel passionate about. I was first diagnosed with celiac disease back in the early 2000s, before awareness was as high as it is now. I traveled the world for a decade with celiac disease, and while I am thrilled that there are more resources out there than when I set out in 2008, they are not always suitable for celiacs. So I've worked hard to continue building long gluten free guides for celiacs, and create detailed, rigorously translated restaurant cards to help keep people safe as they travel. I may be unable to travel any longer myself, but it's an honour to keep supporting the global celiac community. To that end, I recently wrote an article about the use of cross-contact vs. cross-contamination. I am, as the introduction to that piece notes, a words person. I'm a lawyer who became a travel and food writer — how could I not love words?! And where medical conditions are concerned, words really matter. In this case, the differences between those two terms can result in someone getting sick from residual gluten or not. As it stands, Canada and the EU as well as many other countries still use cross-contamination. But as the piece notes, this term also comprises problems from harmful bacterial that contaminate food. This broader term leads to some confusion when it comes to food safety, and contributes to myths that abound. I think using cross-contact helps keep celiacs and other people with food restrictions (like tree nut or other allergies) safe, because it's a specific term that applies to contact with food that can't be 'cooked away'. My arguments are set out in the piece, and I hope that one day soon more countries shift their official guidance to use the term that protects us most. I hope you're all as well as possible in these very overwhelming times. -Jodi | 
No comments:
Post a Comment