Recall: Muffin Mix Pulled for Possible Gluten Contamination








Pork Sausages Incorrectly Labeled Gluten-Free Recalled

California-based Heatherfield Foods, Inc. has recalled approximately 4,380 pounds of pork sausage products due to misbranding. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service made the announcement on Aug. 30.

The product has a gluten free claim represented on the front of the label; however, the product contains gluten in the form of wheat. Wheat is also listed in the product’s list of ingredients.

The raw Longanisa sausages were produced between March 8, 2019 and July 31, 2019. The following product is subject to recall:

One-pound thermoform tray packages containing “HAWAIIAN SAUSAGE COMPANY Sweet Filipino Longanisa ˙NO PRESERVATIVES ˙GLUTEN FREE ˙NO MSG” with lot codes 09067, 09081, 09088, 09113, 09130, 09148, 09156, 09163, 09170, 09179, 09193 and 09212 on the label. The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. 4846” inside the USDA mark of inspection.

These items were shipped to retail locations in Hawaii.

The problem was discovered after the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service received a consumer complaint.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Some product may be in consumers’ refrigerators or freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.


Consumers with questions about the recall can contact John Brown, Vice President, Heatherfield Foods Inc., at 909-460-4150.

Why Breyers went gluten free


Over the past few years, Frito Lay chips (which includes Cheetos, Lay’s, Ruffles, Smartfood popcorn and Tostitos), Ore Ida potatoes, Heinz ketchup, Zatarain rice mixes and other large food manufacturers began adding a gluten-free label to many of their products.

Food companies have long said they would be more interested in gluten-free labeling once it was defined by the Food and Drug Administration and that’s what happened with proposed rules that were finalized last August. The FDA ruling says that a product with a gluten-free label must contain less than 20 parts per million of gluten, a standard considered safe by many celiac disease experts. Gluten from all sources, including cross-contamination, has to be taken into account.

Nick Soukas, director of ice cream for Unilever, Breyers’ parent company, says Breyers wanted to finalize and implement a validation program that ensured the gluten-free products were not at risk for cross-contamination. The validation process was in the works before the final FDA ruling.

“We’ve been planning to change the Breyers packaging for some time now to include the gluten-free claim on the label,” Soukas told Gluten-Free Living. “With more and more consumers adopting a gluten-free diet, Breyers wanted to help these consumers understand their options within our portfolio by clearly having gluten-free labels where this applies.”

Although Breyers uses its own gluten-free validation program, companies may also apply for a gluten-free certification seal from organizations like the Gluten Intolerance Group, through its Gluten-Free Certification Organization program. GFCO enforces stricter standards than the FDA, requiring products that use its seal to test to 10 ppm of gluten. The Celiac Support Association certifies products that contain less than 5 ppm of gluten for most products that use its seal. Third-party certification provides an extra level of assurance for consumers.

Some consumers think Breyers and other companies using gluten-free labels are only joining the “gluten-free bandwagon” that has evolved throughout the past few years. But as more mainstream companies adopt the gluten-free label, gluten-free consumers are seeing a wider range of options that fit into their lifestyles. And when the new labeling laws go into effect in August, companies that use the label will be held to federal standards.








gluten-free beer

testing requirements for gluten-free products.

 new gluten-free labeling rules

Gluten-free labeling rules finally approved



















what labels will look like


gluten-free beer

Cross Contamination of Gluten-Free Grains



Specific amounts (reported in mean ppm) were:

  • Soy flour, one brand 2,925 ppm and another 92 ppm
  • Millet flour, one brand 327 ppm and another 305 ppm
  • Sorghum flour, 234 ppm
  • Buckwheat flour, 65 ppm
  • Millet grain, 25 ppm



“Sampling was not large enough to make any assessment on the overall percentage of contaminated product,” Thompson wrote. It was also too small to make any inferences on the specific grains, flours and seed likely to be cross contaminated, according to Thompson.






Finally, nearly two thirds of the samples in the study did meet the FDA’s proposed standard for gluten-free labeling even though they did not have a gluten-free label. This was true even for three products that had allergen warning statements that said they may contain wheat.








Gluten-free consumer survey


I’ve covered hearings and public meetings where I was the only press representative. And I’ve learned a few things about the Food and Drug Administration along the way.

That might explain why I had more questions than answers after I read the FDA announcement about the “Gluten-Free Labeling of Food Products Experimental Study.”

The first was, what the heck does that title mean?

Simply put, the FDA is going to survey about 5,000 people to see what they think of certain statements printed on the packages of gluten-free products. Examples given by the FDA include “no gluten,” “free of gluten,” “without gluten,” as well as “made in a gluten-free facility.” The FDA also wants to know how consumers think naturally gluten-free products should be labeled.

My second question was, why is the FDA doing this study now?

Congress approved the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act in 2004. This law gave the FDA four years to come up with an official definition for the gluten-free label on food. But when the deadline rolled around seven months ago, the FDA wasn’t able to meet it.

The FDA has already held a public hearing, gathered consumer comments, come up with a proposed definition of 20 parts per million, and completed a review of how safe that level is for those who have celiac disease.

The only thing that stands in the way of final approval of a much-needed standard for gluten-free food in the US is public release and comment on that safety review.

Suddenly, it seemed to me the FDA was going back to the beginning to ask people what they want on labels of gluten-free food.

I thought that question was asked and answered in 2007 when the FDA first detailed a “gluten free” label proposal and then collected public comments on it. The proposed definition already deals with the question of naturally gluten-free foods, saying that they can only be labeled gluten free if there is also a note that all foods of the same type are gluten free. For example, a can of peaches labeled gluten free would have to say all canned peaches are gluten free.

I started to wonder if the survey was just a way to put off final approval of the gluten free label even longer.

One of the things I’ve learned about the FDA is that speed is not usually a high priority. And neither is answering questions about documents full of confusing, technical language.

But I did finally get a response from a spokesman who said the survey is not expected to delay approval of the gluten-free definition. He said it’s something completely separate and that the FDA just wanted more insight on how people with celiac disease and those who take care of them interpret different statements that food makers might put on packages. He did note that if survey results are in before the gluten-free definition gets final approval, consumer comments might cause the FDA to make some changes.

I couldn’t get more information than that.

So I still have questions – why is the FDA asking about terms like “no gluten” or “free of gluten?” They seem pretty simple and self explanatory. Even if food companies use those words instead of “gluten free” they would still have meet the standard set by the FDA.

Would the FDA include a requirement that the 20 ppm standard be spelled out every time the gluten-free label is used? And is it possible that the restrictions proposed for naturally gluten-free foods might be lifted?

I’m not sure why statements about strictly gluten-free manufacturing facilities would be terribly important because once a definition is approved the bottom line on all food labeled gluten-free is that it can not contain 20 ppm of gluten or more. That’s true no matter what kind of food processing plant it’s made in so the dedicated facility statement seems unnecessary to me. But I don’t know if consumers or the FDA will see it that way.

Whatever the consequences of the consumer survey, I hope the FDA was giving it to me straight when I was told further delay won’t be one of them.

Rebuilding gluten-free confidence

The recent Chicago Tribune stories about gluten in products labeled “gluten free” probably left you wondering how safe the food in your pantry really is.

It was unnerving to read in one story that Wellshire Farms chicken bites, and chicken and beef corn dogs that were labeled “gluten free” were independently tested and found to contain anywhere from 200 to 2,200 parts per million of gluten.

“How could that be?” you probably asked yourself while either sighing with relief that you had never bought the products or searching through the freezer to chuck any that you had purchased.

But the real question is how wide spread the problem of mislabeled gluten-free food really is? And the unnerving answer is that no one knows.

The Tribune, in its broader stories about problems with allergen labeling, reported mislabeling of gluten from only one company. (There was mention of the potential for gluten in Whole Foods corn tortillas, but independent tests found no gluten in them). What would we find if we tested a number of products that are labeled “gluten free?”

There are many specialty gluten-free food makers who take steps to make sure their products are safe. They make them in manufacturing plants where no gluten-containing products are made. They test ingredients and then they test the final food. Many gluten-free companies were started by individuals who have celiac disease or gluten intolerance who are aware of the dangers of cross-contamination and all the precautions that are needed.

But some companies who don’t follow such strict practices. Some are small and can’t afford to. Others are large and don’t have the commitment to the gluten-free customer.

And there are still no regulations that establish one set of rules that every company has to follow before it can put a gluten-free label on a package.

That’s why final approval of the proposed definition of “gluten free” is so important and why it’s so frustrating that the Food and Drug Administration has let the deadline required in the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act go by without any action.

The Tribune stories faulted the FDA (and the US Department of Agriculture) for not doing a very good job enforcing the labeling laws that already exist. So you do have to wonder how the beleaguered agency will ever be able to police gluten-free companies adequately once a standard for gluten-free food is set.

But finalization of the standard is a necessary first step before those who have celiac disease can have real confidence in the gluten-free label.

It doesn’t seem there is anything gluten-free consumers can do to get the FDA moving on the definition. The agency says it is still studying the safety of allowing only foods with less than 20 ppm of gluten to use the gluten-free label.

Maybe bad publicity from the Tribune articles will kick start the FDA because it’s pretty clear that misleading consumers with a “gluten free” label on corn dogs that contain up to 100 times the proposed standard is not safe.

Labels “may contain” confusion








That makes sense to me.



