“Non-celiac gluten sensitivity” (NCGS) is a condition in which people report gastrointestinal problems related to consuming gluten — even though they do not have either celiac disease or a wheat allergy. The story concludes that, at most, 1 in 30 of the people who have adopted a gluten-free diet to address NCGS actually suffer from it, with the remainder feeling better because of the placebo effect. The story is especially effective at explaining why NCGS is so difficult to study, and why research to date can’t tell us with certainty if the condition really exists.
According to a 2013 survey cited in the story, more than 29 percent of people in the U.S. are trying to reduce or eliminate their gluten consumption, presumably due to concerns over NCGS. This can have a significant economic impact on consumers. A 2007 study on the cost of gluten-free foods reported that “every gluten-free product was more expensive than their wheat-based counterpart,” and that “bread and pasta was twice as expensive as their wheat-based counterparts.” A similar study in 2008 reported that “On average, gluten-free products were 242% more expensive than regular products.” In short, if 29 percent of Americans are avoiding gluten due to NCGS, millions of people may be paying significantly higher food prices for little (if any) health benefit.
While the story does mention that there are now a broad range of gluten-free foods on the market, it does not discuss the increased costs associated with those products. One additional sentence would have made a really good story a little bit better.
The story does a good job of addressing the symptoms associated with NCGS, which would presumably be eliminated by adopting a gluten-free diet. It also provides useful numbers on the size and duration of the studies mentioned and how big the effects observed were. Example: “The authors found that 40 percent of patients on the entirely gluten-free diet reported a continuation of symptoms, compared with 68 percent of those who had consumed gluten.”
The story doesn’t address the fact that adopting a gluten-free diet can pose nutritional risks. As a Harvard Medical School post notes, “cutting out [gluten-containing] products may mean you’re reducing your fiber intake from whole grains, or missing out on vitamins that you’d normally get from fortified foods.” For example, a 2000 study that compared the diets of a healthy control group with celiac disease patients who had gluten-free diets found that, among other things, “the diet of the [celiac] patients was unbalanced, with a higher percentage of energy as fat and a lower percentage of energy as carbohydrates.” Children would likely be most impacted by nutritional deficits from a restrictive gluten-free diet.
The story does a good job of evaluating the literature on NCGS in regard to the potential benefits of a gluten-free diet. Even better, the story (which appears in an online-only publication) includes links to every study it mentions. The story also makes good use of common-sense examples — for example, lack of “blinding” when participants know they are eating bread — to explain important concepts of study design in randomized trials. It provides information that goes beyond the specific topic of NCGS to educate readers about how to understand the strengths and limits of studies.
The story offers an excellent overview of the literature on NCGS and gluten-free diets, but includes no input from sources other than the author — an economist who has done extensive work on the economics of health-related issues. We think the story stands up pretty well without that independent perspective, but it certainly couldn’t hurt, and would likely have helped, to hear from experts in related health fields, such as a nutritionist or gastroenterologist.
The main options here seem to be a diet with or without gluten. We’ll rate this not applicable.
The story clearly notes the now-widespread availability of gluten-free foods.
The story notes the history of research into NCGS, which dates back to the 1970s.
The story clearly goes beyond any news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Catherine Poles
February 23, 2015 at 9:27 amA good review of the literature seems to suggest that the story uses independent sources. Just because someone is not quoted saying “I agree with all this” doesn’t mean the journalist didn’t check with someone. Why would you quote an independent source unless they said something meaningfully different to all the other material gathered?
George
February 23, 2015 at 1:36 pm“…but it certainly couldn’t hurt, and would likely have helped, to hear from experts in related health fields, such as a nutritionist or gastroenterologist.’
I’ve seen the title “nutritionist” used too many times in these reviews. The more appropriate person to speak to would be a registered dietician. An RD is a degreed professional licensed to practice. On the other hand, anybody can call themselves a nutritionist.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like