We read on the website of ' AIC , about the "legalization" of wheat starch as an ingredient of products deglutinato gf: The wheat starch, however, is also a useful ingredient in bakery products, in especially for bread, because it improves significantly palatability (emphasis mine, but their emphasis is) .
The statement was taken, more or less verbatim-on some other site and blog.
doing some research online I found that the first occurrence in Italian on this topic in 2003, by a voice absolutely reliable as that of Charles Catassi that says something quite different:
[...] Proponents say the 200 ppm on the one hand the therapeutic effectiveness of this threshold, the better palatability of other products containing starch wheat and their lower cost.
Notwithstanding that, I believe what he says Catassi, namely that "the proponents of the 200 ppm say ...", I do not believe that the proponents claim-of-200-ppm (gf's industrial northern Europe in particular and promiscuous-with-and gluten-free in general).
In detail:
1. efficacy of the threshold to 200 ppm
on this I leave the subject field to doctors, doctor-who I am-I follow a principle of caution, and it was for me, lowers the threshold: in Spain, FACE ensures only products with less than 10 ppm, and nothing prevents seriously consider a hallmark of even more severe;
2. palatability
I have not found either online or in the bibliography any reference to a panel of sensory evaluation to confirm this news, indeed, even MGP Ingredients Inc.. , the starch that produces it, throws it on the very general, saying that improves the organoleptic qualities of many baked goods (glutinosi! gf is not mentioned nor is compare with the cornstarch).
Personally, I do at home for a check-know-who has no scientific relevance, I made a bread with my gf and other flour with wheat starch to replace, respectively, corn starch, the rice flour and both of them.
no improvement, indeed, having done only one test, I had to manage the water absorption of dough very roughly getting the worst of the loaves.
should, in order to have scientifically valid, take the standard recipes and to form a panel of professional and independent analyzing their sensory properties.
But this is something that I I can not afford economicamente né mi interessa da un punto di vista professionale: io mi rifiuto di usare materie prime che hanno più di 3 ppm di glutine, figuriamoci l'amido di frumento deglutinato che ne ha centinaia.
3. minor costo
Questo è probabilmente vero, per diversi motivi, uno è che l'amido di frumento costa meno dell'amido di mais, altri riguardano la strategia e la logistica delle grandi aziende produttrici di gf (in un modo o nell'altro tutte promiscue) e -naturalmente- dei produttori di specialties derivate da frumento.
Ma quant'è, questo minor costo ?
A spanne, una crostatina fatta con amido di frumento deglutinato potrebbe costare -alla produzione- 5 euro cents less a made with corn starch (the same could be saved over the 12th g of bread) ...
It seems a great saving for the end user, but also in terms of economic and industrial this matter is, today, numerically laughable.
The consumption of starches for the Italian industry of the gf should be about 30 to 40,000 tons per year.
Assuming a cost of wheat equal to half that of corn starch and assuming the only starch that can be used (now impossible because they are too contaminated and must be mixed with others) would result in an most of this market of 3-4 million € / year.
The value that I consider most appropriate to the current situation is around 1 million € / year. Today a number
laughable-but I was saying in a perspective of full diagnosis of celiac population, which does not need to add gluten-free eating gf (a fast-growing), this value could be multiplied by 50 or 100, two orders of magnitude, a cake that you can eat in a few years but on which the multinationals of the wheat gf and want to give you your first bite.
So what can be said of wheat?
many things, or maybe nothing, because basically we have, as Catassi says, 20-200 ppm threshold for "lack of full scientific certainty about it," and similar lack of full scientific certainty we have about the palatability and lower cost to the consumer.
E 'instead of kerosene, the increased risk for celiac consumers on whose skin you're playing a game that is worth pennies.
0 comments:
Post a Comment