Why Gluten Free Watchdog Is Wrong About the FASTER Act of 2026
- Jon Bari
- 4 hours ago
- 13 min read
Executive Summary
Gluten Free Watchdog (GFWD) recently published its opposition to including Oats as a Gluten-containing grain in the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research Act of 2026 (FASTER Act).
GFWD raises legitimate scientific distinctions about Oats, but its public-policy conclusion is misguided.
First, GFWD needs to stop gaslighting Gluten and non-IgE-mediated food allergies as somehow less legitimate and dangerous than IgE-mediated food allergies ("...gluten not meeting the strict definition of an allergen.") Celiac Disease is a non-IgE-mediated food allergic immune reaction to Gluten and an autoimmune disease. These concepts are not mutually exclusive, and the immunological mechanism certainly should not dictate whether consumers receive meaningful food-labeling protection.
Indeed, the FDA's own guidance on evaluating food allergens recognizes that foods can cause both IgE- and non-IgE-mediated food-allergic reactions and specifically discusses Gluten reactions in Celiac Disease in this context. FDA states that food allergens acting through mechanisms other than IgE "may raise public health concerns."
Second, GFWD's opposition to mandatory Oat disclosure is incongruent with its own research. GFWD has spent years documenting the extraordinary Gluten cross-contact problem involving Oats. In its 2025 testing summary, GFWD reported that all six gluten-free products it found containing quantifiable Gluten contained an Oat ingredient. Even General Mills has represented to the Federal government that cross contamination of Oats with Gluten is "inevitable" (General Mills, U.S. Patent 9,968,937, May 15, 2018).
Third, GFWD is fundamentally a testing organization. Its laboratory expertise is valuable, but expertise in testing foods for Gluten does not automatically translate into expertise in legislative design, consumer-protection policy or international regulatory harmonization.
Fifth and most importantly, GFWD identifies a potential tension between the FASTER Act and FDA's existing Gluten Free labeling regulation and treats that tension as a reason to exclude Oats from the definition of Gluten-containing grains.
That has the problem backwards.
The answer is harmonization, not exclusion. In other words, pass the FASTER Act in Congress and the FDA can also update the outdated Gluten Free labeling rule.
The United Kingdom already provides the best practice model: disclose Wheat, Barley, Rye and Oats as Gluten-containing grains, while separately allowing properly produced Oats meeting the applicable Gluten threshold to be labeled Gluten Free.
1. Stop Gaslighting Gluten and Non-IgE-Mediated Food Allergy
GFWD's argument places too much emphasis on the proposition that Gluten-containing grains do not satisfy a narrow definition of food allergens. GFWD should stop gaslighting Gluten-containing grains as second class allergens since this can endanger people with Celiac Disease.
Food allergy is not solely synonymous with IgE-mediated anaphylaxis.
The FDA's final allergen-evaluation guidance expressly recognizes that foods may cause both IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated food-allergic reactions.
According to the FDA, "Food allergy is a form of food hypersensitivity. Adverse reactions to food due to food hypersensitivity can be broadly grouped into reactions that are mediated by either immune mechanisms (food allergic reactions) or non-immune mechanisms (primarily food intolerances). Adverse reactions that are immune-mediated can be caused by:
IgE-mediated mechanisms (e.g., IgE-mediated anaphylactic reaction to peanuts);
Non-IgE-mediated mechanisms (e.g., adverse reaction to gluten in the case of celiac disease);
Mixed immune mechanisms (e.g., eosinophilic gastroenteropathies); or
Cell-mediated mechanisms (e.g., contact dermatitis)."
FDA specifically discusses Gluten and Celiac Disease in this context, explaining that Gluten can elicit reactions in individuals with Celiac Disease while also triggering IgE-mediated reactions in other allergic individuals.
FDA further recognizes that non-IgE-mediated reactions can provide relevant evidence when assessing the public-health importance of a food allergen. Celiac Disease is also an autoimmune disease.
These descriptions address different aspects of the immune response and should not be artificially treated as mutually exclusive for purposes of consumer protection. More importantly, why should that terminology determine what information appears on a food label?
A person with Peanut allergy needs to know whether peanuts are present.
A person with Wheat allergy needs to know whether wheat is present.
A person with Celiac Disease needs to know whether Gluten-containing grains, including Oats, are present.
The immune mechanisms may differ. The consumer need for accurate food labeling does not.
FDA itself says that protecting consumers with food allergies "and conditions like celiac disease" is a high public-health priority.
Consumer protection should not be divided into first-class IgE-mediated food allergens and second-class non-IgE-mediated food reactions.
2. Barley and Rye Matter Beyond Celiac Disease
H.R. 9988 should not be viewed exclusively as Celiac Disease legislation and the congressional intent is clear from Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (FL-13) who was the lead original co-sponsor of this bipartisan legislation.
Wheat is already a Major Food Allergen because of IgE-mediated wheat allergy.
Research also demonstrates clinically relevant cross-reactivity between wheat and related cereal grains in some wheat-allergic individuals.
A 2022 clinical study of children with immediate-type wheat allergy found that approximately half of the children studied reacted to barley. The authors concluded that clinical cross-reactivity to barley should be considered in managing wheat-allergic children.
Another 2022 study demonstrated IgE cross-reactivity among wheat, barley and rye protein fractions in children with immediate-type wheat allergy.
This does not mean every wheat-allergic person must avoid barley, rye or oats.
It means the public-health rationale for clearer cereal-grain disclosure extends beyond Celiac Disease.
FDA itself recognized this broader issue in its January 2026 Request for Information on gluten ingredient disclosure, seeking information about IgE-mediated food allergy involving rye and barley as well as gluten cross-contact involving oats.
3. GFWD's Position on Oats Is Incongruent With Its Own Research
Perhaps the greatest weakness in GFWD's argument against mandatory labeling of Oats is GFWD's own research.
GFWD has repeatedly documented the serious Gluten cross-contact problem involving Oats.
GFWD explains that Gluten contamination can occur in fields, transportation, processing and manufacturing, and its entire testing program exists in part because what happens in the actual food supply matters -- not merely whether a grain inherently contains Gluten.
The data are particularly revealing.
In GFWD's 2025 Summary Report, 104 products were tested, including 75 represented as gluten-free.
Six gluten-free products contained quantifiable Gluten of at least 5 ppm in one or more test portions. All six contained an oat ingredient.
GFWD even reports that oat samples are tested in triplicate because gluten cross-contact may be heterogeneously—or unevenly—distributed.
That is powerful evidence that Oats present a distinctive real-world problem.
Yet GFWD opposes mandatory oat disclosure while advocating greater testing, surveillance, enforcement and even special warnings involving Oats.
That creates an obvious contradiction:
If Oats present enough risk to justify exceptional testing, surveillance, enforcement and special federal warnings, why don't they present enough risk to justify mandatory disclosure?
GFWD's research makes the case for mandatory oat disclosure better than many advocates could.
4. Consumers Eat Real-World Oats, Not Oats in Botanical Isolation
GFWD repeatedly emphasizes that oats do not inherently contain the same gluten proteins as wheat, barley and rye.
Scientifically, that distinction matters.
For public policy, however, it is incomplete.
Consumers do not eat Oats existing in botanical isolation.
They consume Oats after those Oats have traveled through agricultural systems involving crop rotation, harvesting, transportation, storage, milling and food manufacturing.
Even FDA now specifically identifies “oats due to cross-contact with GCGs” as an ingredient of interest.
That is the real-world food supply Congress must regulate.
5. The United Kingdom Has Already Solved This Problem
GFWD treats the inclusion of Oats as though it creates an almost irreconcilable scientific and regulatory problem.
It does not!
The United Kingdom has already developed a sensible solution.
The Food & Drink Federation's Gluten Labelling Guidance, welcomed by the UK Food Standards Agency, provides a sophisticated framework for labeling Cereals-containing Gluten.
The UK framework recognizes that:
Celiac Disease and cereal allergy are distinct conditions;
Oats differ from wheat, barley and rye;
Most people with Celiac Disease can consume appropriately produced oats;
Some people with Celiac Disease cannot tolerate oats;
Conventional oats present a significant cross-contact problem; and
Consumers nevertheless benefit from knowing when oats are present.
The result is common sense: Wheat, Barley, Rye and Oats are disclosed.
But properly produced Oats meeting the applicable gluten standard can still be used in food labeled: Gluten-Free.
The UK Food Standards Agency praised the FDF guidance specifically because consistent labeling helps people with Celiac Disease and cereal allergies understand the information they need to make safer food choices.
This is the model the United States should emulate.
6. “Contains Oats” and “Gluten-Free” Are Not Contradictory
The key to understanding the UK approach is recognizing that ingredient disclosure and gluten-free status answer two different questions.
Question One: Does the food contain Oats?
Question Two: Does the food meet the legal standard for Gluten Free?
A product can truthfully communicate both:
OATS
and
GLUTEN FREE.
One statement tells consumers what ingredient is present.
The other tells consumers whether the food complies with the applicable gluten standard.
That is not confusing.
It is better information. It is radical transparency.
A person with Celiac Disease who consumes Gluten Free Oats can purchase the product.
Someone who does not tolerate Oats can avoid it.
Someone whose physician recommends avoiding Oats can make that decision.
Disclosure empowers consumers. It does not prescribe their diets.
7. Harmonize the FASTER Act by Updating the FDA's Gluten-Free Labeling Rule
This is where GFWD identifies a potentially legitimate regulatory issue, but reaches the wrong conclusion.
FDA's existing Gluten Free labeling regulation, 21 C.F.R. § 101.91, predates H.R. 9988.
Under the current framework, FDA permits foods containing oats to bear a "gluten-free" claim when the food satisfies the requirements of the regulation. FDA explains the rule and the treatment of oats in its Questions and Answers on the Gluten-Free Food Labeling Final Rule.
H.R. 9988 would create a new statutory disclosure requirement.
If Congress changes the underlying statute, FDA should conform the older regulation to the new law.
That is regulatory harmonization.
It is not a reason to remove oats from the statute.
The harmonized American framework could establish three straightforward principles:
A) Oats must be disclosed when they are an ingredient and will be listed as a Major Food Allergen.
B) Properly produced Oats may continue to be used in foods labeled Gluten Free.
C) The existing 20 ppm Gluten Free threshold can remain in place.
Mandatory disclosure and the voluntary Gluten Free claim perform different functions.
The FASTER Act tells consumers what grain is present.
The Gluten Free regulation tells consumers whether the food meets FDA's Gluten Free standard.
The UK model demonstrates that these concepts can and have coexisted well for many years.
A technical inconsistency between an older FDA regulation and a new Act of Congress is an argument for regulatory harmonization -- not an argument for withholding information from consumers.
To address that, FDA could amend § 101.91(a)(1) so the regulatory terminology corresponds to the new statute with the FASTER Act, while adding a specific Oat exception for purposes of the voluntary Gluten Free claim. Conceptually:
“Gluten-containing grain” means wheat, rye, barley, oats, and their applicable crossbred hybrids; provided, however, that for purposes of paragraph (a)(3), oats that have been specially produced, prepared, and/or processed to avoid gluten cross-contact may be used in a food bearing a 'gluten-free' claim where the finished food otherwise complies with this section, including the requirement that any unavoidable presence of gluten be below 20 ppm.
8. GFWD's Preferred FLMA Approach Should Not Become the Ceiling
GFWD explains in its FASTER Act commentary that it prefers the Food Labeling Modernization Act (FLMA).
GFWD also makes a revealing point:
"I agree with you about gluten not meeting the strict definition of an allergen. This is why GFWD prefers the FLMA. We were involved in the drafting in 2021 -- wording that remains the same in the 2026 version.”
GFWD then contrasts that with legislation it did not help draft.
Participation by experts in drafting legislation can be valuable.
But authorship is not evidence that one legislative approach remains the best approach forever.
The FLMA separates "gluten-containing grain" from Major Food Allergens and does not include Oats within its regulatory approach.
How the FDA classifies Gluten and requires disclosure of Barley, Rye, and Oats has cascading legal and regulatory consequences for the Celiac population which the NIH has estimated impacts greater than one percent of the general population of the United States.
The FDA's definitional designation of Major Food Allergens is not merely informational. The term Major Food Allergens informs various Federal and state programs and laws. The term Major Food Allergen determines regulatory treatment and drives compliance across Federal and state regulatory schemes, including USDA FSIS requirements, Current Good Manufacturing Practices, SNAP and WIC programs, military food service standards, VA food service standards, state laws such as California’s Allergen Disclosure for Dining Experiences Act, and pending state laws.
Therefore, FDA's decisions establish the governing definitional baseline for allergen protection nationwide, and properly classifying Gluten-containing grains is essential to ensure coherent and consistent implementation as well as to provide Celiac consumers with protections equivalent a and consistent with those afforded to individuals allergic to the Top 9 Major Food Allergens.
GFWD simultaneously says:
“We have been trying for years to get the FDA to take all gluten-containing grains seriously -- as seriously as they do wheat.”
That raises an obvious policy question.
If the objective is to have FDA take these grains "as seriously as they do wheat," why insist upon maintaining different statutory treatment from wheat -- and why exclude Oats?
An incomplete and unsuccessful legislative approach developed in 2021 should not become the ceiling for consumer protection in 2026.
GFWD deserves credit for its involvement with the FLMA.
But pride of authorship should not become public policy.
The question is not who helped write which legislation.
The question is which approach best protects consumers.
9. GFWD's Expertise Is Testing -- Not Public Policy
GFWD performs valuable independent food testing.
GFWD's About page explains that Gluten Free Watchdog, LLC was established to independently test foods and make testing information available to consumers.
That work can make an important contribution to food policy.
But laboratory testing and national public policy are different disciplines.
Testing answers questions such as:
How much gluten is in this sample?
Does it exceed 20 ppm?
Is the sampling methodology adequate?
Public policy must answer broader questions:
What information should manufacturers be legally required to disclose?
What system is clearest for consumers?
How should FDA enforce the law?
How should new legislation be harmonized with existing regulations?
What have other countries successfully implemented?
GFWD's testing expertise should inform those decisions.
It should not dictate them.
GFWD's recommendations understandably reflect a testing-centered perspective: more testing, more sampling, more surveillance and more warnings.
But there is a simpler upstream intervention.
Require disclosure.
If manufacturers intentionally put Oats in a product, consumers should not need laboratory testing to discover that fact.
10. GFWD's Business Model Creates a Potential Conflict of Interest
GFWD's business model is also relevant to this policy debate.
GFWD is Gluten Free Watchdog, LLC, and its business is built substantially around independent product testing.
Its subscription page currently offers subscribers access to at least eight newly tested products each month, including the ppm levels of gluten detected in products.
GFWD expressly states:
“We make state-of-the-art gluten-free food testing data available directly to you, the consumer.”
Its subscription fees help finance continued testing.
There is nothing inherently improper about that model.
Independent testing provides consumers with valuable information and can hold manufacturers accountable.
But it does create a legitimate potential structural conflict of interest when GFWD advocates against mandatory disclosure while recommending a regulatory approach involving more testing and surveillance.
GFWD operates economically in a marketplace characterized by uncertainty about Gluten in food.
Consumers pay GFWD for information that helps resolve some of that uncertainty.
A stronger mandatory labeling regime could reduce at least some of the uncertainty consumers currently rely upon private testing to resolve.
That does not establish that GFWD opposes H.R. 9988 to protect subscription revenue.
But the economic relationship is relevant and should be transparent when GFWD enters the public-policy debate.
A conflict of interest does not automatically make someone's position wrong. It means the conflict should be disclosed and the policy recommendation evaluated independently of it.
11. Better Labeling Does Not Eliminate the Need for GFWD
Importantly, mandatory disclosure would not eliminate GFWD's legitimate role.
Independent testing would remain valuable for:
verifying Gluten Free claims;
identifying cross-contact;
detecting manufacturing failures;
testing potentially problematic foods; and
holding manufacturers and FDA accountable.
But testing and labeling perform fundamentally different functions.
Labeling provides information.
Testing verifies compliance.
Consumers should not need a paid private testing service to compensate for basic ingredient information federal law could require manufacturers to provide directly on the package.
GFWD could continue doing what it does particularly well:
Test the food. Publish the data. Identify compliance problems.
Congress, HHS and FDA should decide national consumer-protection policy.
12. GFWD's Own Research Supports the FASTER Act
There is considerable irony here.
GFWD has produced some of the strongest evidence demonstrating why Oats deserve special attention.
GFWD's testing demonstrates the Oat cross-contact problem.
GFWD's methodology demonstrates how difficult heterogeneous Oat contamination can be to detect.
GFWD's recommendations demonstrate that it believes regulatory intervention is warranted.
And FDA's January 2026 RFI now expressly identifies Rye, Barley and Oats due to cross-contact with Gluten-containing grains as ingredients warranting further examination.
The disagreement is therefore not over whether there is a problem.
There is.
The disagreement is over the solution.
GFWD favors an increasingly complicated structure of testing, surveillance and warnings.
The FASTER Act provides the more straightforward consumer solution:
Tell people what is in their food.
Conclusion: Disclosure + Harmonization
The FASTER Act debate should return to first principles.
Food labeling exists to protect consumers.
Celiac Disease being autoimmune does not somehow negate its non-IgE-mediated food-allergy characteristics. It is not one or the other.
It is both.
And certainly that semantic distinction should not determine whether Americans receive meaningful consumer protection.
Likewise, Oats being biologically different from Wheat, Barley and Rye does not eliminate their extraordinary real-world cross-contact problem.
GFWD's own research demonstrates that problem.
Yet GFWD responds by recommending additional testing, surveillance and warnings while opposing mandatory oat disclosure.
That position is difficult to reconcile.
The United Kingdom offers the better approach through its best-practice gluten labeling framework:
Disclose Wheat.
Disclose Barley.
Disclose Rye.
Disclose Oats.
Then separately determine whether the food meets the legal standard for: Gluten Free.
The United States can do exactly the same thing.
Pass H.R. 9988.
Require disclosure of Wheat, Barley, Rye and Oats.
Then harmonize FDA's existing Gluten Free labeling regulation, 21 C.F.R. § 101.91, with the new statute so properly produced oats can continue to be used in foods labeled Gluten Free when they satisfy FDA's gluten standard.
Preserve the 20 ppm threshold.
Continue independent and government testing to verify compliance.
And give consumers the information they need to make their own informed decisions.
GFWD's research can continue to make an important contribution to that system. But its testing expertise, institutional attachment to legislation it helped draft, and economic interest in private testing should not determine national food-labeling policy.
The purpose of food labeling is to protect consumers -- not terminology, legislative legacy, or anyone's business model.
The regulatory solution is not complicated: Disclosure + Harmonization.
Wheat. Barley. Rye. Oats. Disclose them.
Then harmonize the Gluten Free rule so compliant Oats remain gluten-free.
The answer to complexity is not less information.
It is clearer information.
