Would everyone please let The Guardian and Coeliac UK know that Emma Brockes' article in The Guardian today is insensitive and highly victimising to those with Coeliac.
In this article (theguardian.com/commentisfr... Emma Brockes, in having to adopt a healthier diet as she has over-indulged during lockdown, states "I’m the person I never wanted to be, the gluten-free arsehole with the range of dietary requirements that seem less like a health than a moral thing".
We are constantly seeing this nonsense whereby gluten avoidance is simply seen as a faddy diet. This leads to, and feeds, the challenges we have in restuarants, bars, cafés, and socially whereby our dietary requirements are not taken seriously and we are purposefully made ill.
Coeliac UK needs to step up in ensuring there are reporting guidelines around coeliac whereby it is properly protected as an illness. They also need to impress the need for an apology/retraction printed in The Guardian regarding Emma Brockes' comments.
Please let The Guardian know here: guardian.readers@theguardian.com
Please let Hilary, CEO at CUK, know here: hilary.croft@coeliac.org.uk
I've put a comment under the article too, although it might get deleted because I've used such a swearword (arsehole), which I suspect will be fine in an article but not int he comments section...
Just seems so entirely acceptable. Not the first time I've seen this in The Guardian. They are so lefty and woke that they have managed to come back around around again on the Right.
True Cooper27, but there are also journalistic codes. If an opinion piece had the columnist using derogatory language towards specific nationalities or people of colour, or wheelchair users, would it be accepted or deemed printable by an editor in a national broadsheet?
Pretty shocking comment. This article seems quite OTT in the main. She doesn't seem the most healthy in terms of her attitude to food, and unclear why people who are concious of their diet or have to follow a gluten free diet for health reasons should be attacked by name calling. Bit immature to say the least. Not a fan of The Guardian generally. It used to be great. I remember, back in the day, they use to have Dr John Briffa writing for the Observer magazine of Sundays. He was a big fan of avoiding gluten/grains, and I think would balk at Ms Brockes take on things. He was the first person that I ever read talking about non-coeliac gluten intolerance and expressing his appreciation that it was now on the radar of being recognised as an issue for many. The Guardian seems to have gone down hill in past few years of going for the click-bait columnist types who lack knowledge or investigative credentials.
• in reply to
Thanks Mise. Yes, agree with your points. Never heard of Dr John Briffa, but will be Googling him now!
So annoyed I only spotted this today, they turned the comments off yesterday evening. I don’t know how she dare make that type of comment when a lot of us have no choice but to be gluten free.
Just simple ignorance to what coeliac/gluten intolerance is, but also a need to bully others for their choices. This isn't even journalism. Interestingly no response back from CUK for the email I sent them.
I totally agree with you. I too have written to Ms Croft, but after what you’ve said, I doubt I’ll get a response. Perhaps though, the more people that write to her, the more weight we’ll put behind it and she’ll contact the Guardian.
I hate it when the media refer to being gluten free as just a fad diet, it’s putting us in a bad light. We all (on here) know the consequences of eating gluten if you have coeliac disease. A few years ago, I remember an article in the Daily Mail, which also did coeliacs a disservice and if my memory serves me right, they had to address the article to make people aware that coeliac disease had to be corrected by abstaining from gluten. Hopefully, the Guardian will do likewise. We can only hope.
The media have a big role to play in ensuring there is better understanding. The more they perpetuate the myth of the fad diet, the more entrenched that becomes in public understanding, as well as for commercial food producers who are jumping on the gluten free band wagon. I think a lot of more recent GF products, particularly those that fail to actually test their products for gluten despite labelling them so, have aimed at the non-coeliac market, and the standards have been pushed down owing to the notion of 'faddy dieters'. When one then complains to the manufacturer, they totally fail to get the issue as they have adopted GF as a branding/marketing tool, not a safe health claim. It's a vicious circle.
I wrote an email to the Guardian expressing my dislike to Emma Brockes describing People Who Avoid Gluten Are "Ar**holes"
This is what I wrote:
"As someone who was diagnosed with Coeliac Decease fourteen years ago, I am absolutely disgusted that you would allow someone to state that "People Who Avoid Gluten Are "Ar**holes”.
A lot of the food that everybody else takes for granted (including myself before I was diagnosed), I, and many others can no longer eat, and the alternatives are not very inspiring at all, and are usually at least twice the cost of the “normal” food equivalent.
I have literally just recovered from being “glutened” where I accidentally consumed something containing gluten, I was very ill for a couple of weeks and spent a lot of time in bed because I was so weak.
Avoiding food that contains gluten so as not to experience severe stomach cramps, dhiarea, constipation, brain fog, weakness, dizziness and many other awful symptoms, DOES NOT make those people “Ar**holes”, like Emma Brocke has stated.
I WILL NEVER buy your paper again".
Absolutely disgusted
Brian"
This is the reply I have just received:
"Dear Brian, thank you for your email and for your patience in awaiting a response.
I can understand your anger at the reference to gluten in the article, as you have clearly read it as a reference to coeliac disease, and specifically to people who cannot eat gluten due to a diagnosed medical condition.
However, my own reading of this line was that it was a reference to people who choose to go gluten-free rather than being medically required to restrict their diet. I think this is explicit in the words immediately following the phrase you have found so offensive:
Making turkey meatballs with almond flour instead of breadcrumbs and suddenly I’m the person I never wanted to be, the gluten-free arsehole with the range of dietary requirements that seem less like a health than a moral thing.
The context of the full article makes it even clearer that Ms Brockes is referring only to people who are avoiding gluten as part of a calorie-controlled diet - in her case due to concern about her cholesterol levels. Also, the reference to people with a "range of dietary requirements" further indicates she is referring to people who choose not to eat gluten, alongside other self-imposed dietary restrictions on, for example, sugars or cooked foods.
I spoke to the Guardian's Opinion editor about your complaint, and he was surprised to discover that the line had been read as an attack on the coeliac community. He also shared my own reading of the line, as explained above.
Personally, I found the reference rather crass, but in an Opinion column of this type it is entirely legitimate for Ms Brockes to set out her feelings in such language - especially because she is including herself as among this pejorative category of self-restricting, lifestyle-driven diet tourist.
I do however understand that other people with coeliac disease could have read the line in the same way you have, and been similarly distressed. I think one prudent pathway to conveying the concerns you have lodged - and raise further awareness of the specific challenges faced by people with coeliac disease - would be to offer a letter for potential publication.
The email address for that team is: guardian.letters@theguardian.com -- please do message the editors there directly, so that your intention to publish is explicit. They will need your full name, postal address and phone number, for internal verification.
I regret that this matter has likely led to us losing a reader; however I hope you at least consider that we have attempted to explain our position".
Well that was a bit of insult to injury!! Well done you for writing, and well done you for getting a reply back. I've yet to have one.
It still doesn't cut it though. People who do remove gluten from their diet, but don't have coeliac, are still doing it for health reasons. Many have non-coeliac gluten intolerance. Others have probably read that gluten can underpin other health issues. There will, invariably, be the lifestyle non-gluten intolerant worried-well who fall for the myth that a gluten free diet will help them lose weight or live longer, but even then, should these people be referred to as 'arseholes'.
It is an opinion piece, that's for sure, but I think this is still quite a poor response in the main.
Do you think you will write to their letters editor?
I was stunned by the reply as well, I could write a letter to the paper explaining why we found the article offensive, but I don't think they would be able to understand, it would probably go straight over their heads.😕
Just checked. I did get a response. And guess what? Same are yours!!!:
Dear Ben , thank you for your email and for your patience in awaiting a response.
I can understand your anger at the reference to gluten in the article, as you have clearly read it as a reference to coeliac disease, and specifically to people who cannot eat gluten due to a diagnosed medical condition.
However, my own reading of this line was that it was a reference to people who choose to go gluten-free rather than being medically required to restrict their diet. I think this is explicit in the words immediately following the phrase you have found so offensive:
Making turkey meatballs with almond flour instead of breadcrumbs and suddenly I’m the person I never wanted to be, the gluten-free arsehole with the range of dietary requirements that seem less like a health than a moral thing.
The context of the full article makes it even clearer that Ms Brockes is referring only to people who are avoiding gluten as part of a calorie-controlled diet - in her case due to concern about her cholesterol levels. Also, the reference to people with a "range of dietary requirements" further indicates she is referring to people who choose not to eat gluten, alongside other self-imposed dietary restrictions on, for example, sugars or cooked foods.
I spoke to the Guardian's Opinion editor about your complaint, and he was surprised to discover that the line had been read as an attack on the coeliac community. He also shared my own reading of the line, as explained above.
Personally, I found the reference rather crass, but in an Opinion column of this type it is entirely legitimate for Ms Brockes to set out her feelings in such language - especially because she is including herself as among this pejorative category of self-restricting, lifestyle-driven diet tourist.
I do however understand that other people with coeliac disease could have read the line in the same way you have, and been similarly distressed. I think one prudent pathway to conveying the concerns you have lodged - and raise further awareness of the specific challenges faced by people with coeliac disease - would be to offer a letter for potential publication.
The email address for that team is: guardian.letters@theguardian.com -- please do message the editors there directly, so that your intention to publish is explicit. They will need your full name, postal address and phone number, for internal verification.
Interesting reply. I took the same interpretation as he did, that she meant "gluten free arsehole" in the sense of a person who chooses to eat that way just to be awkward. My objection ties to the problem these casual phrases create for the "medically gluten free" out there.
As a teen who had never heard of the disease, I bought into the idea that gluten free people were just eating that way to be awkward, purely based on throwaway language like this. By all means, refer to herself as an arsehole all she likes for being an awkward dieter, just please leave the word gluten out of it, because whether they intend it or not, it's one more chip at a coeliac/NCGS person's credibility.
Totally agree. There is a lot of misunderstanding as to how impactful dietary restrictions are, particularly for kids. Seems crazy that there is emphasis in media and endless TV programmes on healthy living, yet when you have to live 'healthy' for medical reasons you become a hate figure/figure of fun. Not very nice. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, but language is everything, and use of language like 'arsehole' doesn't make coeliac life any easier.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Gluten free labelling in the UK. 
