Useful for patients with Celiac disease, though.
By Raif Karerat
WASHINGTON, DC: Gluten-free foods are excellent alternatives for those with gluten intolerances and sensitivities, but for everyone else, there’s no evidence to suggest that they’re any healthier than regular food, according to a new study.
The study’s authors, led by Jason Wu, a research fellow at the University of Sydney’s George Institute for Global Health, analyzed over 3,200 foods from Australian supermarkets to see if there was a difference between the nutritional content of foods labeled “gluten-free” and equivalent foods that contain gluten.
“There has been tremendous growth in the gluten-free food market in the past few years. These products are obviously essential to patients with Celiac disease or gluten intolerance,” Wu told The Huffington Post. “However, there is clearly a growing perception among consumers around the world that gluten-free products are healthier for others as well. We wanted to figure out if that was true.”
They found no major differences between the nutritional values of gluten-free and gluten-containing versions of non-staple foods. A cookie, in their analysis, was a cookie no matter what.
In staples, such as bread, gluten-free versions often contained significantly less protein than their conventional counterparts. Gluten-free pasta, for example, contained an average of 52 percent less protein than pasta made from wheat.
What concerns Wu the most is the “health halo” effect of the gluten-free label. Consumers see a gluten-free junk food — like one of the cookies observed in the study — and allow themselves to eat more than they should. He noted that this phenomenon is well documented in the literature on other health claiming labels, such as “low-fat” or even “organic,” according to the Huffington Post.
“Whole grains along with fruit and vegetables are an important part of a healthy diet, while highly processed junk foods should be avoided,” Wu advised CBS Atlanta.