A rant I guess

[sasha_feather]

I slightly unwisely got into a discussion around this article on Jezebel: Will Everyone Please Eat Gluten Because You are Literally Killing Me Kind Of.

I disagree with the article. Full disclosure: I'm not celiac; I have done dietary restrictions but felt no better when I was on them so gave them up.

Point 1:

You see, when something that is medically necessary for some of us becomes something cool and trendy for the rest of the world, shit gets messed up. Waiters, thinking I am just another ankle-boot wearing Gwyneth wannabe, no longer take me seriously. It is actually harder for me to eat out now than it was a few years ago because a little dusting of flour on a piece of flounder equals a few days in bed for me.

The problem is people who prepare food wrongly. They are the ones responsible for the error and should be blamed. The article writer is placing blame on "fad dieters" and people who are doing it "just because". People can eat what they want and shouldn't have to defend their choices. Food preparers who make mistakes don't get to blame their mistakes on these people or these resulting cultural beliefs that "it's no big deal".

As an aside, this is also the reason I had a rare disagreement with a column by s.e. smith, this one about allergies: Food Allergies, Food Politics, and Taste. S.E. instructs us not to lie about food allergies, for similar reasons that Ms. Strauss does. I say, don't lie about what is in the food you make!! You can lie about your food allergies all you want, in my book.

Reasons people might dissemble about food allergies:
--It's easier than explaining your complex Syndrome
--It's more polite than explaining that said food gives you the runs
--Because someone actually is slightly allergic but wants to eat that chocolate anyway (my old boss)
--Because *!$#* why should people have to defend their food choices!


Point 2:
As I mentioned already, gluten-free is not the answer to your dieting needs.

This assumes that people do GF for dieting (weight loss) reasons, which may be true, I don't know. Most people I know do it for general health-related reasons: they want to feel better. They, like me, have Syndrome (TM) and are trying different things to see if anything works. They might be cutting down on gluten rather than eliminating it, because it's hard to change your whole diet at once. But I honestly don't care if people do this for weight loss reasons, as long as they don't talk about weight loss in front of me at length.

Point 3:
For those of you who swear off gluten not because you want to lose weight, but just because you think it will make you healthier: please stick with the whole wheat. Fiber is one of the most important things you can eat for health's sake and it is extremely difficult (and pricey, see below) to get your hands on when you are strictly gluten-free.

Fruits and vegetables have plenty of fiber!

Point 4:

Also, this life is expensive!

I imagine most people doing it "just because" have the funds for it. And actually, their demand might drive down prices for the celiacs!

Here are some reasons ("just because") people might decide to go GF:
--In solidarity with someone who is ill (I know someone doing this)
--To see if it helps them feel better
--Because they have an autoimmune disease, diabetes, or other illness
--Because sometimes fashions are actually on to some kind of good idea (see blue jeans)
--Because *$*%&^*! why should people have to defend their eating choices!


There is my rant for the evening.

Comments

[laceblade]

Yassssss.

As for people thinking "Oh, well some people will be lax about it & waiters will get the wrong idea." WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF REFLUX, KTHX.

Most people avoid things b/c they cause "a little heartburn."

My "heartburn" is like NO SERIOUSLY I WILL FEEL LIKE I'M DYING IF THERE ARE TRACE AMOUNTS.
Waiters don't care.
I don't blame other people with less-shitty reflux for this, or people who avoid the foods I avoid.


I know it's not the same for everyone, but I have SO MUCH ANXIETY about food & eating in public/with people. And my dietary restrictions aren't related to allergies! Oh well.
People can & should eat whatever the fuck they do/don't want, i m o.

[sasha_feather]

Mirror-Universe Jackie says: "People shouldn't just fad give up tomatoes or alcohol! It makes my life so much harder!"

lololol

[sasha_feather]

Also I know I said this elsewhere but this post is dedicated to you! I am sorry about your anxiety.

[jesse_the_k]

Yeah, "reflux," like "rash," covers an unhappy continuum from "icky" to "ZOMG die now!"

IME, focusing on the cooking, and not the cost, is more helpful. "You can use these things .... you can't use these things. If you include any of the latter, I will run screaming from the restaurant."

The anxiety is horrible. I'm so sorry.

[sparkymonster]

Argh. I'm sorry that you experience so much anxiety about food & eating. That's sucky and stressful.

[jesse_the_k]

A++++ Rant. Will read many times again.

I know sometimes I will eat "just a little bit" of gluten because I couldn't not eat sistermarysith's Meyer lemon bars. (IT WAS WORTH IT!)

Luckily I'm able to avoid the entire allergy/intolerance/sensitivity issue: "I'm a gluten free eater." Part of the difficulty negotiating with restaurants, for me, is leading with inability. "I can't eat this thing you want me to like because you put it on the menu." It's a losing setup. Restaurant owners (and hopefully, waitstaff) do want to caution people when an anaphylactic-level allergy might not be accomodated.

I've found a handful of restaurants I'm comfortable eating at and I'm sticking with them. Exploring new food is nice; not pooping for two weeks isn't worth "nice."

[sparkymonster]

Being able to poop is important!

[sasha_feather]

I am curious about your opinion re "fad GF dieters"? Maybe you have no opinion?

[sparkymonster]

Thank you for the rant. I'm thinking things.

[sasha_feather]

I admit that I could be wrong about this issue. Also that food is a really fraught thing. I'm thinking too!

[torachan]

Yeah, maybe it's just the people I know, but I had no idea that people were using "gluten-free diet" in the "dieting to lose weight" sense of the word. Everyone I know who is avoiding gluten (whether altogether or just to some degree) is doing it because eating it causes problems for them.

I'm not sure why the rant is directed at people who are avoiding gluten but don't have celiac, rather than at people who prepare/package food. If those people took "no gluten" (or "no [whatever]") seriously, then whenever someone asked for something without gluten, they would be accomodated, whether or not they have celiac.

[sasha_feather]

Yes, that it how I see it too-- a universal design perspective, basically.

[fullygoldy]

If those people took "no gluten" (or "no [whatever]") seriously,

Yes. Breyer's makes a "lactose free" vanilla ice cream that is delicious. Howeverd, if you follow the fine print, it is not 100% lactose free. Sadly, it took DH quite awhile to discover the fine print. So the ice cream works for our daughter, who has a mild intolerance, but not for DH. I just don't understand why it couldn't clearly state "98% lactose free" instead of hiding in tiny font "contains up to 2% lactose" (or whatever the disclaimer says, it's been awhile).

[cantarina]

Yeah, the Jezebel rant could have been a lot better thought out. The example of cross-contaminated pastry case is really on the food provider, not the folk eating GF "just because". They might be contributing to the problem, but the root cause is still carelessness on the part of the restaurant/caterer.

[cantarina]

tl;dr food is a really, really fraught issue for me. I spend a lot of time, money, and energy eating around my allergies. The process is sometimes so frustrating and so much work that I can't deal, but the health trade-offs are worth it in the long run. The idea of people crying wolf - regardless of whether or not I think their preferences should be respected (and I do think they should be, no matter what the reason) - rankles and rankles hard. When my anxiety disorder isn't flaring, my food allergies are the overwhelmingly biggest day-to-day impactor on my ability to function and I'm also a stroke survivor and a fibromyalgia patient. It sits wrongly with me that the disability community would have my back if someone claimed they had had a stroke to get accommodations they didn't actually need, but that this discussion might not treat my allergies, which have been the way bigger health issue for me for years, with just as much thoughtful care.

(That said, if you're calling it an allergy because you don't want to talk about diarrhea in public or explain Syndrome to a stranger, WELCOME HONORARY CLUB MEMBER. Do what you have to do to keep yourself healthy and safe.)

I don't like lychee (what's up with the existence of rubbery food?) and don't touch it, but I have never and will never ever throw lychees into my list of allergens just to avoid eating them. There's a world of difference between "don't like" and "even trace amounts will make me sick" and I wish there was a better, broader understanding of that.

[sasha_feather]

t sits wrongly with me that the disability community would have my back if someone claimed they had had a stroke to get accommodations they didn't actually need, but that this discussion might not treat my allergies, which have been the way bigger health issue for me for years, with just as much thoughtful care.

Here lies my problem. Do people actually claim that they have had strokes in order to get accommodations they don't need? Do people "cry wolf"? I usually hear this kind of rhetoric from the right, from people who don't want to provide more funding (such as disability benefits) for concerns about people abusing services or whatever. If such people exist, perhaps they have other illnesses that need to be addressed: perhaps they are "honorary club members" in another way and they do have access needs. There might be one or two selfish a-holes in any crowd, but I'm willing to risk giving the benefit of the doubt, rather than asking people to prove they are disabled, which is how things work now.

I come from a universal design perspective. If all food is properly labeled, if ingredient lists are available and terms like GF are taken seriously, then such concerns disappear. The problem is not eaters: it's food preparers.

[eggcrack]

I've had dysfunctional relationship with food for years and if I've learned something, it's that being guilt-tripped, pressured, lectured on etc. about my eating choices has never helped me. So I couldn't agree more about people not being obligated to defend their food choices.

[sasha_feather]

Exactly. <3

[wintercreek]

I just want to say, as a person with food allergies, A WORLD OF YES to the problem being food preparers/handlers and not eaters. No one should have to justify their food choices and dietary needs to be taken seriously. I have encountered BS around whether I have "real" allergies because they are not anaphylaxis-inducing. Apparently if my faulty immune response to dairy protein does not immediately threaten my life I am not allowed to act to protect myself? WTF.

I also have this problem with food my MIL has prepared - I ask lots of questions, read the ingredients on the margarine tub, etc, because she is not super attentive to my food needs ... and then I am labeled as "bad" and "ungrateful" and she goes off to cry (NOT EVEN KIDDING. THIS REALLY HAPPENED) when I say that I cannot eat the meal she prepared because she put crumbled soy protein in it and I am allergic to soy protein. Like, it's very sad that your feelings were hurt, MIL, but I AM THE ONE WHO DOESN'T GET TO EAT DINNER.

So yeah. Food preparers, check your privilege. Your carelessness and/or unwillingness to ask clarifying questions and take the answers seriously can negatively impact someone else. It's not your business to police how badly it impacts someone, or in what way. It's your business to listen to and accommodate to the best of the ability the person you have declared yourself interested in feeding. And if the answer is, "I can't accommodate that," then fine. At least you're being honest about it.

Tl;dr, I have lots of fraught feelings around food privilege. Let's not encourage people with dietary restrictions, for whatever reason, to make each other's lives harder. People who are careless about other people's food needs make it hard enough already.

[jesse_the_k]

YOUR MIL & SOY PROTEIN O M G :(

[sasha_feather]

OK, bluntly, your MIL sounds emotionally abusive here.

I appreciate your comment a lot. It clarifies what I'm thinking about regarding disability policing.

[meloukhia]

(n.b. That piece focused on people who *don't* have allergies claiming to have them instead of just saying they don't like something—people *with* allergies of varying degrees of severity are under no obligation to disclose/fully explain them.)

[sasha_feather]

As wintercreek mentioned above, I see my job as taking people at their word. *shrug* But I tend to assume the best about people and sometimes I get it wrong.

[kaz]

Thank you! There was a discussion about this on Captain Awkward the other week. I agree with you - I'd like to put all the blame on faulty food preparation rather than people claiming they have allergies who don't. If someone tells you they don't eat X food, surely the point is believing them instead of digging at their reasons?

(I also know that I probably get some pointed fingers when it comes to "faking" an allergy or dietary restriction - I suspect I'm lactose intolerant, but I have so many food issues because of disability and so many of my favourite foods contain dairy that trying to cut it out entirely is just not an option. I'm pretty sure there are people who watch me buying lactose-free milk along with ordinary ice cream or whatever and go "agh faker!" but really, it's none of their business how I deal with my gastrointestinal difficulties.)

I may also be biased because the whole thing reminds me strongly of how people complain about people faking autistic spectrum disorders, and I could write pages upon pages of furious frothing rage about how I hate that attitude and the damage it's done to me, so I view all discussions about "but those people who fake X disability!" with a jaundiced eye. I mean, even if they exist, surely they can't be numerous - why give them so much attention? Why let people who treat folk with X disability badly off the hook by using "well some people fake it" as an excuse?

Also, re: food and faking allergies... there's this thing I've noticed where *dislike* is not considered a sufficient reason to refuse to eat something. There's this attitude that's like... is eating this going to kill you? Do you have moral objections to it? No? Then STFU and pick up your fork (or chopsticks, or whatever). I don't eat fish or seafood, because I really really really hate the taste - by which I mean, I would rather go hungry than eat it, and the few times I ended up having to choke down some on politeness grounds were extremely unpleasant and ended with me having to quit halfway through so I wouldn't throw up. I've never lied about being allergic, but I've definitely pretended to be vegetarian a time or two when it's the only way people would actually accommodate that. And that's all solely because if I go "I don't *like* fish or seafood", people often don't take it seriously and end up serving me fish anyway/telling me I'm a baby for having food aversions. So to me some of the lying about allergies might be a symptom of the fact that we don't take people at their word about their dietary restrictions and force them into "proving" that they're "really" not able to eat that food.

[sasha_feather]

Ooooh yeah! Forcing people (esp. children) to eat things they don't like is also terrible and all to common. Also shaming people for not liking things-- calling people terrible for not liking a specific food, etc. So not helpful.

I mean, even if they exist, surely they can't be numerous - why give them so much attention? Why let people who treat folk with X disability badly off the hook by using "well some people fake it" as an excuse?

I totally agree with this... who are all these disability fakers? I keep thinking they are some kind of invention, a scare-mongering fairy tale.

[pantryslut]

Since nobody has brought it up yet -- there are two forms of fiber, soluble and insoluble. Grains have insoluble fiber, and that's what you're in danger of missing out if you go gluten-free. Some fruits have insoluble fiber, too, mostly in the peels, but generally you're getting more soluble fiber from them. Unless you're eating dried fruit -- yay raisins and prunes. Celery, broccoli, cabbage and dark leafy greens also have insoluble fiber, and some other veggies if you don't peel them like bell peppers and cucumbers.

(This is super-nutshell-simplified, btw.)