it is weird that celiac stuff has become part of the 'culture war'. because it's literally just a medical thing.... I get super anemic unless I cut a certain protein out of my diet, because it bulldozes the villi in my intestines. but if I post about it, right-wingers send me gore images. I guess you can't expect shitty people to be logical, but I've even heard lefty people make fun of gluten stuff, and it's like why are you mad about this??? why are you pissed off that I'm eating bread that doesn't taste as good so that I can have blood in my body? it's so morally neutral.
I'm sorry, I know you weren't actually looking for an explanation but I always have a rant about this locked and loaded.
As far as I can tell the reasons that this happens are:
- The interpretation of disability accommodation as wokeness - a lot of the same people who are shitty about food limitations are also shitty about sign language interpreters and ramp requirements (also building regulations relating to the latter) because they view any accommodation as capitulation to a group they think should "suck it up and deal with it" (quietly exist without named or obvious accommodations). The conversations around peanut-free or milk-free classrooms to accommodate children with allergies are similarly unhinged and possibly more horrifying.
- Conflating specialty diets as a result of proximity in the popular consciousness - you're a lot more likely to see something described as "vegan + gluten free" or to see vegan/vegetarian/g-free options grouped on menus than you are to see keto/vegan/gfree options so the "lefty" animal-free diets get grouped with gluten-free (it's also interesting that there are right-wing diets, and I wonder how many of these people remember when you used to be able to find "atkins-friendly" symbols on casual dining restaurant menus)
- Gluten free diets became a fad fifteen years ago; tons of people read "Wheat Belly" and stopped eating wheat as a weight loss hack and when they went back to eating wheat because it's actually pretty difficult to get around a major staple grain they didn't experience any negative consequences; people saw this and basically think that it's a trend, that people are faking medically necessary diets as part of a fad. When questioned about this they always go "but, I mean, it's okay if you REALLY need to skip the wheat because you have a condition but most people are doing it because it's popular" when g-free diets haven't been a major trend for quite a while now. TO BE QUITE FAIR, I think that things like "Gluten Aware" cookies and beer and such, which contain a little gluten but not NO gluten contribute to this perception (these have annoyed me forever for two reasons: 1. They make people without celiac think that a little gluten is fine for people with celiac, which it is not; 2. fucking commit, companies. *I* want the cookies and beer and it's deeply annoying that these business will go to the lengths to create products with minimal gluten but won't actually make g-free foods - this is often because of the risk of cross contamination, they won't claim to make g-free things because they won't work with a dedicated g-free facility)
Anyway, in conclusion: it sucks, I'm sorry.
The fun flipside of this is that I've seen people who are more right wing become aggressively pro regulation and pro accommodation when they or their family members have to suddenly take on the individual burden of making up for a society that doesn't include them by default.
US specific:
Is your ham made with vinegar? Does your ham have the generic word "spices" on the ingredient list? Does your ham include "smoke flavoring"? Does your ham include caramel coloring?
Because malt vinegar has gluten in it. "Spices" may include wheat products in a mix. Smoke flavoring may be made with barley flour. Caramel coloring may be made with wheat or barley syrup.
If the label says "gluten free" that means that the "spices," caramel coloring, vinegar, and smoke flavor are certified to contain 20ppm or less of gluten.
If the ham is cured in any way, it may include gluten. If the ham was marinated, it probably includes gluten. If the ham was prepared in a facility that processes wheat in any way, it might be cross contaminated with gluten.
There's a company out there called "Gluten Free Water" that makes water in plastic bottles, poking fun at the idea that too many things have a gluten free label. I fucking hate that company. Because that company is functionally saying "lol, people are so sensitive and over the top about this, let's be a little silly and laugh about how crazy people can be with their 'gluten free' nonsense."
Did you know that there are sustainable food containers and straws that contain wheat? And that you don't have to label them? There are definitely people with celiac who have been sickened by biodegradable plastic straws in their "obviously water is gluten free there's no risk here" water.
"It's over-labeled so it looks trendy" just means you don't know how foods are made or what foods contain gluten. Gluten is ridiculously common in foods in general, and also in packaged meats.
Your ham has to say gluten free because it distinguishes it from the hams that do contain gluten, which is a fucking lot of them. And you're annoyed that your ham has to say gluten free and I'm annoyed that I'm standing in the grocery store calling a ham company to figure out where they source their caramel coloring so I can figure out if the damned ham is safe to eat.
"lol, oats don't have wheat in them, are people so stupid that they have to be told what is and isn't wheat? why does this oatmeal have a gluten free label?" Cross contamination; gluten free oats are not grown near wheat and are not processed in facilities that process wheat.
"lol, rice doesn't have wheat in it, why is this rice labeled gluten free, all rice is gluten free" Cross contamination; the rice isn't processed on equipment that processes wheat.
"lol why does this turkey breast say gluten free, it's just fucking turkey" read the ingredients on your "just" turkey, lots of packaged meat is packed in broth, some of which contains modified food starch, which may contain wheat.
"lol why are these strawberries labeled gluten free? they're fucking strawberries" WAX, BUDDY. SOME FRUITS ARE COATED IN PRESERVATIVE WAX FILMS BY THE MANUFACTURER AND SOME OF THOSE FUCKING FILMS CONTAIN GLUTEN.
I think that part of the reason that people are so irritated by g-free labels is because it exposes them to just how vast and alienating their food systems are.
"Ham should just be meat from a pig, maybe with sugar and salt; what on earth is happening that there might be wheat in that process? Nothing in that process should involve wheat." And then you might have to think about it for a second, might have to wonder what "sugar" and "salt" mean when someone is producing a million hams to be delivered thousands of miles away. It's not just sugar and salt; it's preservatives and nitrates and batch cooking and getting corn syrup instead of sugar and getting smoke flavoring instead of smoking the ham and turning your "whole food" into all the ingredients that make up the ingredients that make up the ingredients.
A "gluten free" label says "you can eat this" to somebody with celiac disease, who has already pounded their skull against the shittiness of the medical system and the food system.
But to someone who doesn't have to worry that their food is going to disable them, a "gluten free" sticker on ham takes a known quantity and turns their sandwich into a hyperobject that contains animal agriculture and industrial additive production and shipping pollution and the ongoing assault on regulation.
If it doesn't have the label, you can just eat your lunch. If it does have the label, you are haunted by the specter of RFK junior imploding the FDA.
Turns out that everyone in the US with celiac is already constantly haunted by the possible implosion of the FDA because food regulation is an up-close and personal part of our daily lives that most people would rather not think about.
"Two researchers in the US and Australia have discovered important mechanisms that prevent B cells from attacking the body’s own tissues in autoimmune diseases like arthritis, lupus, and multiple sclerosis—and in the process have won a prestigious prize.
Normally, the body’s immune system protects us from viruses, bacteria, and foreign substances. However, in autoimmune diseases, the immune system starts attacking tissues in the body instead.
Researchers had long tried to discover the cause of autoimmune diseases. But, Christopher Goodnow and David Nemazee, independently of each other, adopted a new approach.
They asked why we do not all develop these diseases. Their focus was on B cells which, together with white blood cells and T cells, are the building blocks of our complex immune system.
“They have given us a new and detailed understanding of the mechanisms that normally prevent faulty B cells from attacking tissues in the body, explaining why most of us are not affected by autoimmune diseases,” says Olle Kämpe, member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and chair of the Crafoord Prize committee that awarded the pair 6 million Swedish kronor ($600,000).
Neutralize B cells
In recent years, physicians have started to experiment by using existing drugs to neutralize B cells for patients with severe autoimmune diseases, including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis, which has proven to be very effective at improving their quality of life.
Thanks to this year’s Crafoord Prize Laureates, we have gained fundamental new knowledge about what is happening in the immune system during autoimmune disease attacks.
“This also paves the way for development of new forms of therapies that eventually can cure these diseases—or might prevent them in the future,” said one professor of clinical immunology at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences...
More details from the video, since the article glosses over the particulars:
"The laureates discovered what is now called B cell tolerance.
When B cells develop in the bone marrow, not all of them are perfect. To remove the faulty ones, a mechanism starts, in which defective cells are programmed to destroy themself through apoptosis.
The laureates discovered two new mechanisms that are used if some of the bad cells are left. Re-editing, where the immune system alters the combination of receptors, and anergy, that silences B cells with self-reactive receptors.
The laureates were able to demonstrate that these mechanisms sometimes fail. This means that faulty B cells can cause an attack on the body's own tissues – leading to autoimmune diseases.
Thanks to the laureate’s discoveries, doctors like Anders Bengtsson soon felt able to start treating patients with lupus, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and many other autoimmune diseases, with medicines that eradicated B cells.
Anders Bengtsson: "I'm very happy that B cells has gotten so much attention because of the laureates. I have seen my patients getting so much better and getting a better life."
Autoimmune patient: "Today, I feel very good. I really have hope in the research that it will revolutionise things and perhaps even cure it all. That’s what I want, hope for, and believe in.""
-Article via Good News Network, April 6, 2025. Video via The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, January 29, 2025.












