Canadian labelling re: gluten

Hey all,

We've had a few customers trying to work around being able to claim "gluten free" on labels, which we basically have said no, we can not do because we are not a gluten-free facility and we do not do quantitative testing after cleans to be allowed to produce a gluten free statement.

Does anyone know/have any experience around the claim of "no gluten added?" This is something that a few people are desperately wanting to put because they repeat over and over "But I'm not putting in any ingredients with gluten so 'no gluten added' should be allowed." However, CFIA's website says

A gluten-free claim is any representation in labelling or advertising that states, suggests or implies that a food is gluten-free, as per B.24.018 of the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR).

We are concerned that putting "no gluten added" would imply gluten-free to the lay-person, and so it would not be accepted on a label. We are generally uncomfortable with the term overall. Anyone know if this statement is above-board and allowable? Or would it come down to the inspector. Or would it require quantitative testing? And then if the test comes back over the limit (20ppm), is that product now garbage? I mean, it would be. So yeah. Thoughts?

Hey all,

 

We've had a few customers trying to work around being able to claim "gluten free" on labels, which we basically have said no, we can not do because we are not a gluten-free facility and we do not do quantitative testing after cleans to be allowed to produce a gluten free statement.

 

Does anyone know/have any experience around the claim of "no gluten added?" This is something that a few people are desperately wanting to put because they repeat over and over "But I'm not putting in any ingredients with gluten so 'no gluten added' should be allowed." However, CFIA's website says

 

 

A gluten-free claim is any representation in labelling or advertising that states, suggests or implies that a food is gluten-free, as per B.24.018 of the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR).

 

We are concerned that putting "no gluten added" would imply gluten-free to the lay-person, and so it would not be accepted on a label. We are generally uncomfortable with the term overall. Anyone know if this statement is above-board and allowable? Or would it come down to the inspector. Or would it require quantitative testing? And then if the test comes back over the limit (20ppm), is that product now garbage? I mean, it would be. So yeah. Thoughts?

Hi jdudka,

This attempted "zigzag" has Google refs going back over 10 years globally speaking.

I anticipate that Health Canada will have already opined on the subject (somewhere).

Just as a side-comment here is an extract (2013) from a  USFDA Discussion – seemed a fairly potent safety rebuttal to me –

For example, as the comments indicate, a claim such as “no gluten added” might not be similar to “gluten-free;” instead, a “no gluten added” claim could mean that the manufacturer did not increase the food's gluten content during the manufacturing process beyond whatever level of gluten the food contained before manufacturing.

 

https://www.federalr...beling-of-foods

I also liked this one from USFDA (2005!) -

One of the things too in this area of products is that we find much mislabeling. As you can see, one brand of the rice crackers was labeled "no gluten added" on the front and on the back it says it contains trace amounts of wheat. What is a consumer to do? Which side of the package do you believe? So, standardized labeling would help alleviate a lot of that.

 

https://www.fda.gov/...s/ucm107204.htm

 Hi  Jdudka

 i wouldnt even go there because  no added gluten definitely implies gluten free

 you are liable whether the gluten is intentionally or unintentionally added.... whether added by you,your supplier  or the farmer

 whichever way you look it ..  the claim just means  gluten-free therefore your due diligence is required  with that claim.

Here's some guidance from BRC/UK FSA

Here's some guidance from BRC/UK FSA

Hi Brummy,

As i read yr attachment, i get the impression that BRC (UK) would not object to the OP's problem text. Their focus seems principally on the word "free". Whether the Fair Practices (a-c) would kick in also seems debatable.

I did a very brief Google scan for Canada/Health Canada and was unable to find any specific declared objection.