# Very Interesting Article On Gluten Levels In Beer



## Thirsty Boy (22/12/07)

Hi Guys,

I was reading a trade mag at work (Brauwelt International Oct 07) when I came across this article. I thought that it might be of interest to a few people as Gluten free beer is a reasonably popular topic here on AHB.

Its 7 pages of scans, so there is a fair bit there. I had to make the images fairly low quality to try to get it under 2MB total... not sure if I can get them all up in one go/day, so if the article ends abruptly... I'll post the rest tomorrow.













Now I'm not saying that the conclusions of this article are right, or that the European standards mentioned reflect the acceptable levels of Gluten in Australian "Gluten Free" foodstuffs... I'm just putting it out there as information.

Maybe, just maybe ... a lot of people out there with gluten intolerance need to worry about beer a bit less than they thought. Wouldn't that be nice for them?

Thirsty


----------



## blackbock (22/12/07)

Thanks thirsty. This was indeed an interesting article with some scientifically-based conclusions. I found the tables a bit confusing though. I hope this article does NOT inspire people to start mixing Coke with beer though :lol:


----------



## Thirsty Boy (22/12/07)

Yeah, the tables sort of confused me too, they make a bit more sense when they are laid out next to each other. Often the table appears, but then the explanation for the results is a page or two over...

Bloody Germans!!!


----------



## Millet Man (24/12/07)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Now I'm not saying that the conclusions of this article are right, or that the European standards mentioned reflect the acceptable levels of Gluten in Australian "Gluten Free" foodstuffs... I'm just putting it out there as information.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe ... a lot of people out there with gluten intolerance need to worry about beer a bit less than they thought. Wouldn't that be nice for them?


Thirsty,

Thanks for posting the article it was a good read.

I have some issues with the article though, mainly:

1. The standard ELISA test used for the results of the study (ELISA I) is not reliable in detecting the gluten in barley (hordein) or oats (avenin), however it is good at detecting the gluten in wheat (gliadin) and rye (secalin). See reference from FSANZ our local authority on food safety. It is also poor at detecting the smaller protein peptides produced during malting.
2. The study excludes wheat beers (which are typically only 50-70% wheat anyway) since they "may very likely contain in excess of 1000 mg gluten per liter of beer" which would put them well over the gluten free threshhold in Europe of 20 ppm (~ mg/liter). This omission admits that the test is good at detecting gluten from wheat but not from barley. The tests results from the two Kolsch beers containing wheat malt (up to 20% of grain bill) show this as they are 130 and 118 ppm respectively compared to the two without at 10 and 14 ppm - The two Kolsch beers containing wheat malt were excluded from the final analysis.
3. The article suggests that wheat contains about 100 times more gluten than barley (eg: a 100% wheat beer at say 1200 ppm and a 100 % barley beer at say 12 ppm), in real terms wheat may only have about 1.5 times more gluten than barley (refer to the table on page 5 of the article that states raw barley has 37% prolamin out of 10.6% protein = 3.9% prolamin (hordein), compared to raw wheat at 40-50% prolamin out of say 13% protein = 5.9% prolamin (gliadin)). I have not been able to find a reference on the relative toxicity of gliadin and hordein.
4. The gluten free threshold in Australia is - no detectable gluten and; no oats or their products; or cereals containing gluten that have been malted, or their products.

It appears like an article designed to validate "normal beer" as being naturally gluten free, which is not the case in the real world. Speaking for myself (but I know a lot of other Coeliac Disease sufferers would agree) I know that drinking a few "normal" beers a day would make me quite ill from the gluten induced symptoms and would be at odds with the findings of this article. Beer was the last thing I eliminated from my diet because I had to, it does make you sick.

I hope that one day the scientists can develop a test that is good at detecting barley gluten and the malted gluten peptides so that the gluten content of beer is a more easily quantifiable number.

Cheers, Andrew.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (24/12/07)

Thanks Andrew,

I suspected you would be the person with the most ability to respond to that article. I think you are right and the article is mainly an attempt to edge "normal" beers closer to being allowed to call themselves gluten free, even when they aren't really.

I did though think that the second (beta) test that the article mentions is used (ELISA II) was in fact the test that you were hoping for,the one that detects the smaller peptide fragments. And while it may or may not be true, they do directly state that "the R5 antibody used in both tests specifically recognizes all prolamins in wheat, rye and barley" --- but..... before that in the article, they mention that the raw figures returned by the test are multiplied by two because it detects gliadin and gliadin composes only 50% of the Gluten... so I get mixed messages.

They do seem to be suggesting that its the gliadin components that are the toxic ones... but they define things a bit hazily at the start of the article and I'm not sure if they are referring to gliadin as the prolamin fraction from wheat, or gliadin as the alpha, beta, gamma and omega gliadins that are the constituent parts of all the prolamins. The definitions are either mixed, or are just beyond me as a lay person reading the article.

I do think you're being a little harsh about them omitting the wheat beers... I really think they were just bowing to the obvious and admitting that of course wheat beers weren't going to be gluten free, so why waste time on them. Can't really fault them for knowing when they'd be beating a dead horse.

I still think (assuming the whole thing isn't hogwash) that it lets in a little ray of light for you poor coeliac bastards though. Quite a few of those beers were tested at <10ppm even on the ELISA II test. If its possible to make a 100% barley beer that is testing at <10ppm gluten, then perhaps that leaves open the possibility of using a blend of the completely gluten free grains and barley, to make a <5ppm gluten beer, that has more of the genuine barley malt flavours that are missing from even the best sorghum/millet/buckwheat beers.

Mind you, I'm not trying to talk you or anyone else into anything.. its not my damn insides that are on the line (yet.. hopefully) I now know that I can pretty easily make a "low gluten" beer for my only somewhat gluten intolerant friend, that _borders_ on having gluten levels that would be considered gluten free (although it certainly wouldn't match the Aus _definition_ of gluten free). It wouldn't be worth the uncertainty if she was actually a coeliac (not without the ability to test it) but she isn't

Thanks for helping to clarify some of the bits I was uncertain of in the article, and for providing a point of view that is far more educated and personally involved, than I could hope to get anywhere else.

Cheers

Thirsty


----------



## Millet Man (24/12/07)

Thirsty Boy said:


> I did though think that the second (beta) test that the article mentions is used (ELISA II) was in fact the test that you were hoping for,the one that detects the smaller peptide fragments. And while it may or may not be true, they do directly state that "the R5 antibody used in both tests specifically recognizes all prolamins in wheat, rye and barley" --- but..... before that in the article, they mention that the raw figures returned by the test are multiplied by two because it detects gliadin and gliadin composes only 50% of the Gluten... so I get mixed messages.
> 
> They do seem to be suggesting that its the gliadin components that are the toxic ones... but they define things a bit hazily at the start of the article and I'm not sure if they are referring to gliadin as the prolamin fraction from wheat, or gliadin as the alpha, beta, gamma and omega gliadins that are the constituent parts of all the prolamins. The definitions are either mixed, or are just beyond me as a lay person reading the article.


Thirsty,

The other thing to remember is that this paper was probably written in German originally so it is easy for some of the definitions to be blurred in translation.

ELISA II test is still under development but is touted as picking up the smaller peptides which is a step in the right direction as far as beer analysis goes.



> I do think you're being a little harsh about them omitting the wheat beers... I really think they were just bowing to the obvious and admitting that of course wheat beers weren't going to be gluten free, so why waste time on them. Can't really fault them for knowing when they'd be beating a dead horse.


The point I was trying to make is that the experts agree that a wheat beer will test over 1000 ppm, however a barley beer tests around 15 ppm. The difference between the gluten content of wheat and barley is not that big, so either the test does not properly detect gluten from barley (as stated by FSANZ) or something else is amiss. The article tries to explain that the gluten was removed in the brewing process which is why it is now around 15 ppm, but then why do wheat beers test so high, shouldn't most of the gluten have been removed in the brewing process also?

All good discussion but it just doesn't add up for me. I think I'll trust my gut on this one.  

Cheers, Andrew.


----------

