Gluten-Free Alternatives Aren’t More Nutritious

Gluten isn’t inherently unhealthy

A (very tasty) gluten-free waffle at Confections by Kirari West. Photo taken by author.

In a scene from the movie This Is the End, Seth Rogen’s character says, “Gluten’s a vague term. It’s something that’s used to categorize things that are bad, you know? Calories, that’s a gluten. Fat, that’s a gluten.”

The film playfully pokes fun at him, and by extension, the people who overexaggerate gluten as a nutritional devil. I hope nobody is ignorant enough to classify calories as gluten, but it’s not an uncommon belief that gluten-free food is a “low-cal” option, worse for your tastebuds but better for your body. “At least you’ll be so healthy!” is one remark I received when I revealed my newfound celiac diagnosis.

The bakery Sinners & Saints in Venice, CA echoes this harmful demarcation, advertising a binary between their offerings for Sinners (“decadent desserts”) and Saints (“gluten-free delights”).

I don’t want to hate on this establishment too much, as it’s reportedly tasty and safe for those with celiac disease. Even when baked goods are advertised as gluten-free, they’re often prepared in a way that makes them prohibitive for those with gluten-related autoimmune disorders or allergies.

But gluten-free or not, it’s problematic to delineate food as “sinful.” Just let people enjoy an Oreo…