1

Gluten in Portland: Selected works from students Overview of the course In the spring of 2012, I taught an upper-level medical anthropology course on gluten at Portland State University. This course aimed to study the issue of gluten through embarking on a class project that examined the knowledge, narratives, and meanings of gluten that are currently circulating in the Portland region. Through a diverse set of readings and films, the class explored different approaches to understanding how health and illness are constructed and mediated. We explored the issue of gluten through studying illness narratives and experience; boundaries and pollution; health movements; commoditization; health politics; and religion. The class was centered on four main themes—biomedicine, alternative medicine, commoditization, and politics—and utilized theoretical analyses of discourse (Stuart Hall, Michele Foucault), purity and pollution (Mary Douglas), and authoritative knowledge (Brigitte Jordan). All students took part in a group research project, where they conducted innovative research on gluten in Portland, applying theoretical concepts to their analyses. Though students were assigned to a group, they all conducted research on an individual research topic that was related in some way to their group topic (biomedicine, alternative medicine, commoditization of gluten, and the politics of gluten). Students embarked on field research in the Portland community, where they utilized multiple methods (participant observation, interviews, archival research, etc.) for their analysis. While some students focused on the health arena (biomedical doctors, naturopaths, acupuncturists, etc.), others were oriented towards marketing, consumption, and activism. Jennifer Aengst, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology Portland State University Portland, OR Table of Contents Discourse and the Commoditization of gluten-free foods Sarah M. Cobb 2-12 Hidden Undertones: Politics and Portland’s Gluten-free Lifestyle Maria Pfeifer 13-34 A Look at the Sub-Culture of Beer through the Recent Gareth Peard 35-48 Expansion of Gluten-Free Offerings

2

Sarah M. Cobb

Discourse and the Commoditization of gluten-free foods Over the past several years there has been an increase in public knowledge and a

widespread discourse in reference to the negative effects of ingested gluten, consequentially

leading to a rise in gluten-free diets (O’Brien, 2011). In connection to this increased popularity

of a gluten-free diet there has been a strong reaction by food retailers to cater to this emergent

population who desire a gluten-free diet both nationwide and particularly in the city of Portland,

OR (O’Brien, 2011). My research asks how gluten-free products are being marketed to the

public by observing product labeling, in-store location of items, and the language used to make

the product appeal to customers. I have used this collected information to understand what

consumer base the food companies are seeking to obtain and therefore how the commoditize

their gluten-free products. In my research I have found gluten-free products being commoditized

in relation to a healthy lifestyle and purporting a product choice for a more mindful consumer;

one who is considering healthy and natural diet choices.

In this paper I will discuss how my research illustrates discourse, as explained by

Foucault (Hall, 2001), and how discourse has shaped the public’s knowledge and social meaning

about gluten. I will show how this discourse of gluten-free diets, combined with the notion of

authoritative knowledge (Jordan, 1997), has led to the increase in Portland’s population to

embrace such a diet. Finally, I will demonstrate how retailers have reacted to this developing

food trend by identifying their stylistic and linguistic choices in how product items are marketed

to the public and how this relates to the marketing of Ayurvedic drugs in India.

3

In order to adequately assess how gluten-free products are being marketed to consumers,

I employed several research methods. I used participant observation at large grocers such as

Fred Meyers, Trader Joes, and Winco and therefore I was able to have hands on contact with

gluten-free products. This was important because I looked at the product packaging from all

angles of the box, jar, and bag etc. and was able to read each written description of the product

allowing me to survey linguistic choices by the marketer. I also relied on participant observation

to help support my theory and to gather my findings by employing this method at several local

restaurants and bars, including one co-op, Blue Scorcher bakery, in Astoria, OR. Along with

participant observation, I held short interviews with employees and managers of the food

retailers listed above, the manager at the Blue Scorcher Bakery, and the manager of a Pizzicato

restaurant, which provided me different local perspectives on in store marketing and gave me

further insight into the public’s discourse of gluten and gluten-free food choices. I also utilized

archival research to help offer a more fact based perspective and statistics of the growth of these

products and their marketing campaigns.

These three research methods provided me the appropriate evidence to ascertain how

gluten-free products are being marketed and how the desired consumer base affects the ways in

which they tailor the appeal of the product. It was obvious through the various research gathered

that stylistic choices by companies and retailers helped me identify how gluten is being

commoditized. I was then able to clearly unify my findings with the theories of discourse and

authoritative knowledge.

At Trader Joes, the gluten-free food items were displayed with the gluten containing

foods. However, each gluten-free product was indicated throughout the store by a small orange

sign posted by the product price on the shelf. These stickers were bright indicators throughout

4

the store, showing and emphasis on the product. Along with the posted orange sticker each

gluten-free food item sold by Trader Joes also has an insignia to designate it as such posted

directly on the packaging. This symbol is a lower case “g” with three small leaves attached on

the right side. This small symbol depicts nature, through leaves, and evokes an image of a plant.

This image goes beyond identifying a product as gluten-free but suggests through a simple image

of nature one subtle way in which gluten-free food is marketed as a natural/healthy choice.

At several Fred Meyers, there was a gluten-free section offered amongst all the

merchandise in the expansive stores. Both gluten-free sections consisted of their own designated

aisle that was located directly next to the organic, whole food and bulk sections of the stores.

This is an obvious indicator that gluten-free products are being marketed to the organic and more

health and ethics-oriented food consumer. The location of these sections serves to attract

customers shopping in the organic and natural aisles.

The organics section provides many food options which are also vegetarian and vegan.

This is important because these food products are for consumers who choose to tailor their diet to

be more eco-friendly and are based on the ethical implications of food consumption practices.

Organic, vegan, and vegetarian consumers are typically concerned with how their food is

processed and where it comes from (Onyango, 2007). These consumers desire their food

practices to be in step with a general lifestyle decision of being a consumer mindful of the

impacts of their purchases. Gluten-free aisles are located either adjacent or attached to these

sections, subtly designating the connectedness in practice between the gluten-free, organic, and

natural foods.

At a specific Fred Meyers I also took note of one kiosk separate from the gluten-free aisle

advertising a “gluten-free bakery” providing baked goods. This kiosk appeared within the past

5

month, May 2012, of my participant observation, therefore it is a new addition in Fred Meyers.

At this booth there was a large assortment of gluten-free baked goods such as muffins, brownies,

cookies, and several types of bread. The “Gluten-Free Bakery” booth was located on the

outskirts of the vegetables and produce section of Fred Meyers and next to the hummus and

imported cheeses and spreads aisles. Here gluten-free food products are being given a healthy

image; this healthy image stems from the close location to the vegetables and produces and

appears refined by its adjacency to expensive cheeses and spreads. This booth location implies

healthy food and a more tasteful, quality choice.

The booth was separate from the gluten-free aisle and this technique of placing the small

booth apart from the gluten-free aisle indicates a marketing technique where the retailer

company wishes to attract a consumer using a “push” technique (Varadarajan, 2010). This

technique wants to attract a customer who may not initially feel they need this product. In the

circumstance of the gluten-free kiosk, it is appealing to many customers, not just to t he gluten-

free customer, by being placed outside of the specified aisle. This indicates the growth in

popularity of gluten-free items and the retailers’ recent marketing choice to try and obtain a

larger customer base.

I held unstructured interviews with store employees at each of these locations, as well as

with managers at the Blue Scorcher Bakery and Pizzicato. In the managerial interviews I

gathered the most information relating to restaurant discourse of gluten-free items. I noticed that

the co-op bakery in Astoria had several gluten-free products. I asked to speak with a manager

and the lady was readily available to answer my questions. After my initial inquiry into why

they offered gluten-free products, she began by explaining that food items sold in grocery stores

and restaurants were on a large scale modified and that it is difficult to trace where food is

6

coming from geographically and how it has been grown or produced. She told me that much of

the food the typical American purchases and eats is modified or enhanced through “unnatural”

means (i.e. genetic modifications, pesticides, and preservatives) and she is very opposed to this.

The Blue Scorcher Bakery provides organic, local foods with many vegetarian, vegan, and

gluten-free items.

She explained that more health problems have recently been traced to gluten in foods and

that food products today are saturated with gluten. She believes these gluten allergies and

sensitivities are linked to the food modifications and treatments. With the large scale occurrence

of food being made and processed by unnatural means she thinks there is a subsequent rise in

allergies and other health issues such as gluten sensitivities.

With her discussion of food politics and an emphasis on health linked to food

practices she was explaining why gluten-free foods were of importance and were offered as

choices at the co-op. Her discussion of why consumers should be more aware of the ethics

behind their food and how their food is produced and the ingredients which it contains, framed

her discussion of gluten-free products which is directly linked to my research findings. Gluten is

contextualized within a natural and healthy food discourse.

The connectedness in aisle locations of organic, natural foods and gluten-free foods in the

grocery stores is reflected in the responses she gave to my questions. She clearly believes that

these food practices and politics are interrelated and interconnected. The Blue Scorcher co-op as

a bakery overtly displays an ambiance of a local, community-oriented, and naturally-focused

eating environment. Their gluten-free product offerings made sense within the food practices of

the store by my interview with the owner.

7

In my second interview I found a different perspective but one which still relies on the

public’s discourse of gluten-free as a healthy choice when deliberating the increase of gluten-free

products. The manager of Pizzicato explained that more individuals were asking for gluten-free

pizza crusts and breadsticks and this trend had only emerged within the past year or two. He said

that other pizza toppings such as sausage contained gluten and it was necessary to ask each

individual requesting gluten-free crust if they had an allergy to gluten or if the food item was a

preference.

He said the majority of customers who were asked this question would state it was

merely a preference and in many instances related this to a desire for a healt6hier food option. In

his opinion those who desire healthy food options should not be choosing pizza because of the

cheese and other high-calorie toppings. Therefore he perceives gluten-free foods as a food fad

which promotes a diet focused on weight loss and healthy lifestyle. However when asked, he

was unsure whether the gluten-free crust was a healthier choice. He assumed it must be because

of the increase in purchases relating to this desire of a healthier option.

My participant observation and interviews relate to a theory asserted by Michel

Foucault. Foucault describes discourse as more than a linguistic convention (Hall, 2001). He

purports that a public’s discourse shapes how public opinion is created and expressed within a

situated dialogue which is then accepted as truth by a society. Discourse is culturally constructed

and historically situated; the populous approaches ideas of social structure, or moral and ethical

boundaries, by negotiating these boundaries and structures throughout time. These discourses

change within any particular cultural or historical situation. As I have shown through my

interviews with those working in the food retail business gluten-free items have only emerged as

a highly popular food product within the past two to five years. Therefore the discourse on

8

gluten and a gluten-free diet is historically situated since we can map the increase in public

knowledge, product availability, and information offered on the effects of gluten in this current

historical context.

This reflects what can also be seen in the cultural discourse of healthy living and a

“natural lifestyle” and the association to gluten in the past handful of years. Similar to specific

food requirements or dietary restrictions, either due to personal choice or to illness (such as

vegetarianism, veganism, organic or low-carb substitutes, lactose intolerance, etc.), we see how

gluten has become tied into the public’s increased awareness of food impacting an overall

healthy lifestyle and as a politically and ethically based commodity.

Foucault says that discourse constructs a topic (Hall, 2001). With the growth of public

discourse on gluten-free living as a healthy option we see the growth of products and its

packaging and presentation catering more to the consumer who is desirous of healthy living and

a more natural eating practice. Both my participant observation and interviews provided

evidence of such a discourse. The discourse heralds the notion that today you can maintain and

customize your diet to adjust to healthy and natural diet. This speaks to a consumer base which

gluten-free foods are attracting through specific marketing techniques promoting holistic good

health. In this way the discourse on gluten is shaping how it is perceived by the public along

with becoming more frequently discussed throughout the food industry’s product offerings.

This increase in public discourse shapes how the public views gluten in a cultural context

and also stabilizes authoritative knowledge on the subject. Authoritative knowledge as discussed

by Brigitte Jordan (1997) is one form of popular knowledge on a subject or idea that is

commonly accepted as true and holds social power. This knowledge has societal authority

because it promotes or discourages practices and structures which situate meanings of topics,

9

concepts, and objects. Validity and truth may not always be the central reason for why

authoritative knowledge is accepted by a society (Jordan, 1997). How authoritative knowledge

gains power is tied to Foucault’s notion of discourse in that through the use of popular discourse,

shaping public opinion, emerges an authoritative knowledge which becomes the public’s

accepted ideology.

In the case of the marketing of gluten we see that science and medicine do not need to

play a significant role in the public’s acceptance of a gluten-free lifestyle being comparable to a

healthy lifestyle (Laufer-Cahana, 2009). Therefore we see that the Portland community’s

authoritative knowledge on gluten is shaped by the choice of the individual’s dietary practice and

is less concerned with the mediation by medical or scientific knowledge.

Medical testing can identify a wheat allergy (Mayo Clinic, 2009), however gluten

sensitivity has had trouble finding legitimacy in the medical community because it cannot be

clearly tested (UM School of Medicine, 2011). Positive results of switching to a gluten-free diet

are in many cases something only an individual can experience and attest to. Ideas of weight

loss or an increase in strength or a healthy lifestyle through a gluten-free diet are contingent on

other choices made by one choosing a gluten-free diet (Laufer-Cahana, 2009). There are

inconsistent ideas in the scientific and medical community as to what, if any, positive results or

embracing a gluten-free diet are (Laufer-Cahana, 2009). Therefore we see that the authoritative

knowledge or gluten-free diets as a healthy alternative may by grounded less in scientific proof.

This shows that the discourse has shaped the authoritative knowledge which prevails even with

other alternative knowledge.

With the discourse of gluten-free diets purporting a marriage or gluten-free and healthy

and natural lifestyles, we see the authoritative knowledge in the Portland grocer and restaurant

10

industry market the idea that gluten-free designates a healthier lifestyle for those who follow it.

Whether retailers saw this authoritative knowledge upheld in the community and therefore

tailored their marketing in this direction, or marketers first identified a population who would be

drawn to gluten free if sold as a natural and healthy food option, it is difficult to determine which

connection came first. What is apparent is how marketing choices of gluten-free have embodies

this discourse on authoritative knowledge and the two reflect the notion of gluten-free as a

healthy alternative.

The marketing of gluten is comparable of Ayurvedic medicines. Ayurvedic medicine is a

traditional, indigenous medical system in India. Since the 1970’s manufacturing of Ayurvedic

drugs, which were traditionally herb-based remedies prepared for an individual by a kabirajes, or

Ayurvedic practitioner, have been on the rise and are now being manufactured by large drug

companies (Islam, 2010). The approach by drug manufacturers has been to create a traditional

and nationalistic image of Indian medicine while embracing a modern, medically progressive

attitude when selling their product. Ayurvedic drugs have been widely marketed as traditional

drugs with a modern twist.

The consumer market the Ayurvedic drug manufacturers wish to obtain are Indians

seeking beauty and lifestyle products which harkens back to traditional medicines and remedies

while also being progressive and a commodity which an individual can feel good about

acquiring. The majority of those purchasing the drugs are wealthier Indians (Islam, 2010). This

demonstrates that the Ayurvedic drugs are tailored to the product conscious consumer who

desires a modern commodity and can afford these more pricey products compared to many other

lower socio-economic Indians (Bode, 2006). As I have demonstrated though my field notes

above the same can be said of gluten-free products which cater to a particular consumer base

11

who are purchasing a lifestyle along with their food choice and who can afford to spend more on

these products. Ayurvedic medicines and gluten-free food items hold meanings which can help

the marketers find a consumer base.

Bode (2006) explains the assertion by Arjan Appadurai that there is a meaning in objects

and commodities that is contingent on cultural ideas and authoritative knowledge in which they

exist. Ayurvedic drugs are one example because through their marketing they hold meanings of

tradition, ritual, and nationalism, along with progressive attitudes. Within this particular cultural

context meanings of commodities such as medications are situated by the authoritative

knowledge of that society. A similar cultural context and authoritative knowledge exchange is

seen in the marketing of gluten-free commodities.

The Ayurvedic drug manufacturers have helped situate the meaning of the products by

marketing the items using language and images which creates and solidifies the consumer

knowledge (Bode, 2006). We see this with the cultural meanings and significance in relation to

the marketing of Ayurvedic drugs, and we can see this as well as in the marketing of gluten-free

products. Through purchasing gluten-free items a consumer can feel that they are making a

lifestyle choice. Their food holds meaning beyond the very absence of gluten and represents a

conscious consumer whose dietary choices are thoughtful and discerning.

Through the theoretical lenses of Foucault’s discourse shaping cultural meanings we see

how gluten has a discourse which is culturally and historically situated. Authoritative knowledge

has been shaped and solidified by the discourse of gluten. In return marketers of gluten-free

items are producing a cultural meaning in their food products that the consumer can find

attractive to their desired lifestyle. My research provided the evidence that gluten-free is on a

large scale considered symbiotic with food politics and lifestyle choices, and the retail industry is

12

marketing the product as a natural and healthy food choice. As I have shown, this marketing

style of gluten-free foods is relatable to the marketing of Ayurvedic drugs as depicted in the

writings of Bode (2006) and Islam (2010).

Works Cited Bode, M. (2006). Taking Traditional Knowledge to the Market: The Commoditization of Indian

Medicine. Anthropology & Medicine, Dec. 2006 pp.225-236. Flaherty, S. & Robinson, K. (2011). University of Maryland School of Medicine Researchers

Identify Key Pathogenic Differences between Celiac Disease and Gluten Sensitivity. UM School of Medicine. March 2011.

Hall, S. (2001). Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Discourse. Sage, 72-81. Islam, N. (2010). Indigenous Medicine as Commodity: Local Reach of Ayurveda in Modern

India. Sage, 777-798. Jordan, B. (1997) Authoritative Knowledge and Its Construction. Childbirth and Authoritative Knowledge: Cross Cultural Perspectives. 1997 Laufer-Cahana, Ayala. (2009). Gluten-Free Diets Are Necessary Only for Those with Gluten

Intolerance. Open Salon 2009. Mayo Clinic. (2009). Family Health Book 4th Edition. Time INC. October 2009. O’Brien, K. (2006). Should We All Go Gluten Free? NY Times, Nov. 25th, 2011 Onyango, B., Hallman, W., and Bellows, C. (2007), “Purchasing organic food in US food

systems: A study of attitudes and practice”, British Food Journal, 109:5 pp. 399-411. Varadarajan, R. (2010). Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: domain, definition,

fundamental issues and foundational premises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing. Science, 119-140. 2010.

13

Maria Pfeifer

Hidden Undertones: Politics and Portland's Gluten-Free Lifestyle The incidence of gluten-related health challenges ranging from diagnosed illnesses

involving immune system complications such as Celiac Disease to what is often referred to as

gluten-sensitivities have increased dramatically in the past few decades. Still plagued by

difficulties in medically-reliable testing and diagnoses, the rates for diagnosed celiac disease

alone has increased to 1 in 133 Americans and affects an approximate 1 in 20 Americans who

show some form of gluten-related health complications (e.g. allergies, stomach-related and other

symptoms associated with gluten). (Beck; March 15, 2011) In 2010, the growth of the gluten-

free food market reached an estimated $2.5 Billion in sales, particularly drawing buyers who are

health symptom-free and simply choosing to omit gluten from their diets for non-disease related

reasons. (Sapone et al., 2012)

In the use of the phrase lifestyle, it appears that Portland reinforces this wellness trend

through on-going conversations about products, resources, health providers and social

opportunities. Increasing collective action and emerging social groups surrounding gluten-free

living indicate a thriving health support system for many locals. However, economics and social

movement theory have been linked more symbiotically over the past few decades and potentially

suggests that Portland's gluten-free lifestyle may be more than simply a health issue that may

also reach into political arenas. This study focused on how some Portlanders perceive political

or social action and whether they consider their daily actions in living gluten-free as participation

in a growing local health movement. This research offered a qualitative glimpse into some of

14

these conversations and the factors motivating study participants in their gluten-free living by

exploring the following questions:

• What were some of their reasons for living gluten-free? • What were the perceived strengths and concerns regarding gluten-free living here? Do they differ from other places they have lived? • Did they see themselves as social activists while taking part in a gluten- free lifestyle? Did their understandings about social movement and political activism change during the course the study conversations about gluten-free living? • In what context did they view their future health and personal practices regarding Portland's gluten-free lifestyle in the future? The theoretical work of Michele Foucault established the groundwork in the analysis that

first focused on his concept of discourse as way meaningful representations of knowledge are

created, shared and in how the role of personal autonomy played in the participants' exercise of

power within the context of gluten-free living. (Hall, 1984) Secondly, the analysis compared the

emerging forms of new social movement theory, as presented by Alberto Melucci, to the

personal stories of gluten-free living in Portland. The new forms of methods or actions in

contributing to or exacting socio-political change are shifting from actions recognized during

social unrest in the 1960's to more "submerged" actions involving economics, leading to new

meanings about what social movements look like and who is actually 'involved.' (Starr, 2010;

Melucci, 1989)

This study brought to light initial differences in how participants view the role politics

play within gluten-free living. Health reasons provide the primary motivation for living gluten-

free, yet there are other motivating factors such as making informed gluten-free purchases,

seeking out local and internet-based resources and participation in social activities. The data

15

showed an underlying, socially-engaging and individually-based movement to increase gluten

awareness throughout the local community. The meanings these Portlanders have for their own

gluten-free lives dictate their actions within their community and they intentionally prefer to

make a difference for others through personal example without the use of, what they perceive as,

traditional political or social actions.

Future study in other areas of Oregon, such as rural communities, might explore the knowledge

of and participation in gluten-free living, as well as the role politics play in a more diverse

gluten-free discourse.

Foucault and Portland's Gluten-Free Experience

Foucault views discourse as producing knowledge about a certain topic (creating

meaning) where power then emerges from the knowledge and shapes the future actions

(meaningful practice) around that topic. (Hall, 1997) Foucault viewed discourses involving

more than one conversation or exchange at a time, are historically and culturally situated, and

that meaning comes from discourse itself and subjects or topics do not exist outside of the

immediate discourse. Although the emphasis on the terms politics and lifestyle imply a linguistic

foundation, it is the actual process Foucault introduces by which individuals converse with each

other to construct and clarify meanings and how these meanings influence those outside the

'conversation'. (Hall, 1997)

According to Foucault, there are necessary factors to determine whether a discourse

occurs and that the focus is not necessarily in the language used during the discursive events as

much as it is whether meaning from the events are derived. Some of the challenges in

determining the existence of local gluten-free discourses include the rules of talk and statements

16

that provide specific knowledge consensus such as medical determination or diagnoses of gluten-

related health complications. The common practices to emerge from a discourse would be

difficult to attain when dealing with gluten as indicated in the inconsistent production and

labeling practices for gluten-free foods. Finally, the culmination of a personification of what the

condition or appearance of a gluten-free consumer or patient is represented as would be difficult.

Gluten-related health challenges are more of a spectrum than a state of being ranging from

gluten-intolerance to immune-system involvement such as Celiac Disease. For the purposes of

this study, the focus is on Foucault's factor of authoritative knowledge in which certain degrees

of knowledge about the topic leads to related degrees of power. It is also important to recognize

that a person's state of health presents a spectrum of potential changes in new meanings from one

moment, individual or discourse to another. Foucault's view of the existence of multiple

discourses, rather than the existence of one discourse occurring for a single topic, acknowledges

the potential for confounding and uncontrollable influences that occur during exchanges such as

different environments, social or political events, economics, or the actual participants taking

part within a discourse.

In fact, one of the most challenging factors of Foucault's discourse concept is his applied

rule that meanings are confined to a particular topic at a specific point in time. (Kögler, 1996)

As an example, the application of a discourse topic cross-culturally would surely be problematic

if the specific topic had no applied representation found within a non-Western culture.

Discourse is the process of knowledge exchange and the power struggle that creates new

meanings within the immediate context. However, when applied to a topic such as health in

general, or 'gluten-free' specifically, the meaning about what having to live a gluten-free

17

existence is about cannot change for everyone due to it being a highly subjective experience.

Health is a uniquely personal, humbling and multifaceted experience:

"...while serious sickness is an event that challenges meaning in this world, medical beliefs and practices organize the event into an episode that gives it form and meaning." (Young, 1976) Health care services within this country are powerful, excessively influential over how we view

our own health (Kingfisher and Millard, 1998), highly specialized and involve several competing

forces (internal and external) among social, political, and economical systems. The idea that

individuals only create new meanings out of discourse rather than retain any 'old' meanings

simply from life experiences buried deep inside, such as it is with chronic illness, ignores the

value these prior meanings bring into a discourse. Concepts and meanings may change a little

with the creation of new knowledge, but celiac disease remains incurable. Yet we continue to

seek health care service support, but with increasing emphasis on maintaining our roles in our

treatments, providers and other care options, as the increasing rates in patient use of

Complimentary and Alternative Medical (CAM) care indicate. (Saydah & Eberhardt, 2006)

In situations where individuals experience loss of personal and/or physical control due to

illness or health challenges, their health support network need to encourage open discussions,

education, assist in the development of specialized skills, ensure patient follow-through of

treatment protocols and offer hope for improved health in the future. Often, patients are faced

with loss of insurance coverage or increasing care costs, shorter office time, limitations in

appointment designations or area providers, and existing prejudices and disparities regarding

access to care. The importance of creating working relationships between patients and medical

providers is supported in research on improving patient health management self-efficacy.

(Fuertes et al., 2006) Even though there seems to be local resistance in acknowledging the

18

practice of living gluten-free as having political meanings, it is primarily a form of self-health

care. As the national debate in this country over health care system reform continues, patients

will be expected to manage their health challenges as a means in reducing financial costs for

everyone. Omitting gluten from one's diet, whether by physical necessity or personal choice, is

an example of applying the knowledge derived through discourses in gluten that Foucault

believed to be a an identifiable need for an individual to exercise their autonomy and way

maintain one's individual exercise of power. (Oliver, 2010)

Perhaps by understanding the current meaning of politics among local individuals living

gluten-free, it will open up more opportunities for discourse and collective empowerment in

health-related issues and recognize Portlanders living the gluten-free lifestyle as vital

contributors to one of today's most important social movements.

Patient empowerment and the New Social Movements

"I see social movement culture functioning as a process of recognition, query, and expansion, repetitious, slow, but growing bigger in each conversation." ~Amory Starr, researcher on local food institutions as possible social movements (2010)

With the tandem growth in the rates of medical diagnoses, availability of gluten-free food

products, social networks, websites, health practitioners and community groups promoting and

mutually supporting gluten-free lifestyles, the language and practices experienced locally reflect

a growing national trend in increasing supplementation of traditional health management

practices toward utilization of peer relationships and internet use. (Pew Research Center, 2011)

Nationally there is a shift towards personalizing 'wellness' among the food marketing industry,

19

complimentary and alternative health (CAM) practitioners and public health education programs.

(McMahon, Williams and Tapsell, 2010)

In Portland, gluten-free dietary choices are referred to primarily as a lifestyle that

involves those individuals omitting gluten from their diets for disease management as well as

individuals who identify gluten-free living as a return to whole food or healthy living practices.

Local bloggers, nutritionists, foodies, authors and budding entrepreneurs consistently refer to a

gluten-free diet as more than just a medical necessity for many. For example, Oregon-based

author, Tammy Credicott, refers to writing her recent book on gluten-free life as "...a journey to

good health" that encompasses many aspects of healthier living rather than only for medical

purposes. (Crigger; February 7, 2012)

Although living gluten-free is an individual process, the growing number of individuals

either forced to omit gluten from their diets or choose to for reasons other than health signifies

their participation as a collective action— a form of social movement as explored by Alberto

Melucci. He states that there are three characteristics that make such a movement (Melucci,

1989:29):

1) a social movement involves the recognition of its 'actors' as "a single social unit (solidarity); 2) the presence of adversarial opposition, or "conflict" which he characterizes as an assumption between adversaries that there is 'something lying between them, and blocking them both from mutually-desired values; and 3) the push against an established system to the point of breaking through to less restrictive spaces due to the inability for the system to alter their "structures." Melucci identifies changes occurring within symbolic or meaning-based concerns where

'gaps' are being created between established social systems and new, emerging systems. Some

examples of these gaps include those from the commodification of "gluten-free" products, the

20

globalization of food sourcing, and the continuing growth of health and resources disparities

throughout the world that are muting groups by their class, religion, ethnicity and/or gender. As

complexities arise within our social structures and systems, there is a creation of what he refers

to as "submerged" groups, or hidden "nomads", who focus on their present individual needs and

act upon their political expressions for change through everyday experiences and collective non-

political action. (Melucci, 1989:23) Due to the indecisiveness of the gluten issue within the

medical community, Melucci's argument directly applies to Portland's gluten-free lifestyle in that

social movements, like those pertaining to 'health', have become less definitive and more

complex. Individuals now must focus on smaller scales of social change, incorporating their day-

to-day actions as expressions of knowledge and power through meaning found through

discourse.

Methods The total number of participants comprised 15 women living within the Portland-metropolitan

area. Participants, who defined their racial identities themselves, consisted of eleven Caucasians,

three Hispanics, two Asian Americans; one Native American and one African-American. The

socio-economic class and ages of these women were not requested, however some of this

information was offered during the interviews and confirms varying ranges for both. All refer to

themselves as "mostly" gluten-free, with the exception of two, who were completely gluten-free

due to their celiac disease diagnoses. Although it was not purposefully restricted to all female

study participants, there was an intentional decision to include participants in a variety of

different roles within the community, health-related educational interest, currently practicing a

gluten-free diet and availability for follow-up by phone throughout the entirety of the study.

21

The methods used in this 10-week study involved a combination of six structured

interviews and eleven single conversations, two participant observations, and document reviews

of materials exclusively available through the medically-trained study participants and the

gluten-focused resources from those participants not considered health practitioners.

Data collection was conducted systematically, beginning by building a social context and

environmental framework from where the study participants draw gluten-free knowledge from

daily through informal conversations. Notes from the narratives of the 11 study participants for

the single conversations without follow-up were taken within a variety of settings including

coffee shops, on the phone, through emails, and places of work such as hospitals, professional

offices and health clinics. These conversations were based on asking them about their current

knowledge of and service practices regarding gluten-free diets, resources and client/patient

experiences within their roles as educators or healthcare providers. These conversations were

purposely left fluid to allow for the community-based participants to provide the analysis

foundation for gluten-focused topics relevant to them. At this time, the six participants for the

structured interviews were recruited.

Structured interviews were then conducted among these six study participants including

naturopaths and other complimentary alternative medicine providers, life/gluten-free/nutritional

"coaches", gluten-sensitive community members and a nutritional educator/employee at a New

Season's Market. These interviews were randomly administered using a standardized interview

instrument, with one half (three participants) conducted in face-to-face meetings and the

remaining three women were then sent the instruments via email with the request to return them

once completed. The purpose for dividing the administration methods of these interviews was to

account for any possible differences in their responses due to researcher presence, word usage or

22

to inquire about any passed over questions. At the end of the 10-week study, two follow-up

conversations were held with each participant to clarify existing questions and comments for

final review.

Participant observations were conducted at a local support group hosting a four-person

panel discussion on gluten-free diets as well as made within local-area grocery stores to provide

some background on potential product references, available classes and to track some consumer

habits regarding shopping choices and duration of product investigations. The gluten-free

printed materials provided by participants who are practicing heath care providers (allopathic and

holistic or CAM) that were reviewed ranged from educational pamphlets about celiac disease to

recipes for gluten-free foods such as breads and cakes.

A participant, who refers to herself as an "integrative health practitioner" , submitted

materials she offers her patients from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the local

Gluten Intolerance Group (or GIG) known as "Grain Damaged." (GIG website) These brochures

and pamphlets are generally handed out only to patients and clients diagnosed with celiac disease

or wheat allergies. Health coaches and the other Complimentary and Alternative Medical (CAM)

providers, such as the acupuncturist and Chinese medical practitioners, create their own flyers

that list references to gluten-intolerance articles and available gluten-free products, trusted

websites, as well as allopathic materials from the local community health clinics.

Material and resource reviews of blogs recommended by some study participants show

more significant references to advocacy or 'soap box' talk. Although few local blogs/websites

were included in the review, some from other areas or regions used similar language and other

terms as all of the local materials within the review. Two key resources utilized frequently

among the non-professional participants are the Twitter and Facebook social media sites. Use of

23

Twitter "hashtags" (coding applied to posted "tweets" making searching for topics easier) such as

"PDXgluten-free", "Portlandgluten-free" and "gluten-freeOregon" were used to encourage on-

line "group-sourcing" for feedback to specific questions or comments. Finally, gluten-focused

retailers and other commercial websites were briefly explored to familiarize researcher with

products and key terms that could potentially come up during the conversations and interviews,

which turned out to be very helpful.

One of the participant observations was conducted at a local support group hosting a

panel discussion on gluten-free diets and lifestyle. The attendance for the support group event

was well attended by about 50+ individuals, where the normal attendance for other events,

according to the co-leaders, averages about 20 participants. Although only a few designated

themselves as having a celiac diagnosis and there were a couple of individuals who indicated

being "borderline for celiac", the majority practice gluten-free living by choice to manage their

chronic conditions and appeared to enjoy coaching the other audience members on how "...easy

giving up gluten really was."

Forum presenters were very responsive to questions from the audience. One presenter, the only

MD, spoke more to the need for individuals to develop a strong relationship with their health

care providers in order to gain a "true" diagnosis for celiac than he actually addressed gluten-free

living specifically. The materials and brochures, as well as the topics covered by the forum

presenters, were overwhelmingly supportive of adopting a gluten-free lifestyle/diet, although the

MD did not provide any informational handouts. It was noted at the conclusion of the event that

more audience members stood in line to speak with the MD than the gluten-free 'supporting'

presenters. Other participant observation narratives also included statements of distrust in or

avoidance of seeking allopathic medical practitioners regarding gluten-related issues. They also

24

expressed the importance for individuals to believe in and maintain strong commitments for

one's ability to know when something is physically wrong with them. Advocating for one's own

health was a core theme in all the reviews, single conversations and observations.

In order to capture the essence of a naturally forming gluten-free discourse, six

participants were recruited to take part in structured interviews consisting of ten questions

beginning with creating definitions of or descriptive terms for the words "politics" and

"lifestyle". The following questions lead them through an exploration into what living gluten-

free means to them (on an individual level) pertaining to their sense of identity, personal

statements about living gluten-free, their choices in products, levels of commitment to diet,

participation in gluten-free community events and any experiences with gluten-free living

outside of Portland. The interview ended with a modified version of the first question for them

to revisit whether they now see anything political to them about living gluten-free. Participants

were encouraged to reflect back through the questions and provide any further adjustments,

corrections or clarify their responses. The structured interviews were designed to simulate a

gluten-free discourse that began with each participant initially defining their existing framework

regarding politics. Throughout the ten weeks, their completion of the structured interview was

followed up with informal conversations building upon their responses and then culminating in

revisiting their initial question about defining political in the context of their lives as gluten-free.

Comparisons between their meanings about politics before the interviews and analysis of the

language and actions relating to politics within a gluten-free lifestyle context were documented.

Initially, all participants stated that they did not consider a gluten-free lifestyle as

resembling "political" activity. Some of the responses to the comparison to or inclusion of

politics within gluten-free diets include:

25

"There is so much available now, people don't have to be political about it." Teri, health coach "I can get political, but then I'll just piss people off if I do." Sammy, fibromyalgia patient

In general, most participants viewed the terms "politics" or "political" in a combative or negative

light. Some of the descriptive words and phrases they associate "politics" with include

"opinionated", "defensive", "having to choose sides", "dangerous", "we vs.them", "bi-

partisanship", "run and hide!" and "beware!"

Only two of the six interviewees (both CAM practitioners) framed their meanings of

these political terms in what they considered a positive way such as "something having to do

with community", "group decisions", "collaborating to change", and "standing up for what you

believe in publicly."

An immediate shift from this meaning-focused question towards a question about their

motivation behind living gluten-free was intentional, in order to link their current thinking about

politics with their personal health and diet decisions. As already mentioned, all were currently

living "mostly" gluten-free with the exception of two participants with celiac disease. There

were significant findings regarding the participants' meanings of specific terms. Not just in how

they interpreted the terms political and lifestyle, but also in how they identified their gluten

'labels' to describe their particular health status.

Although a couple of questions sought to determine the specific level or classification of

their gluten-related health challenge (diagnosed or self-reported), participants provided a variety

of definitions of their gluten 'status including "-sensitive", "-induced..." Also, each participant

26

provided details of the symptoms they experience when they eat or the symptoms they no longer

have once they omitted gluten from their diets.

"Now that I know I am gluten-intolerant, I'm finally free from mucous!" ~ Sammy, fibromyalgia patient

The question pertaining to the participants thoughts on the phrase "gluten-free lifestyle" produced

more dialogue than any of the other questions. Even though it is the most common way gluten-

free living is referred to locally, a few interviewees voiced frustration over the implication that

living gluten-free was a "choice." This was particularly true for the two women diagnosed with

celiac, but both the naturopath and the integrative physician also commented that celiac disease

can be life-threatening and, therefore, a forced "situation" or "necessity." The meanings or

interpretations associated with lifestyle by those dissatisfied with the term included:

"...connotes a choice in the matter"

"It doesn't address medical need and importance for consideration from others" "I really try to avoid all labels."

"Sounds too much like a fad."

When they were prompted to elaborate on whether they feel compelled to suggest publicly

alternative ways to acknowledge the lack of personal choice in gluten-free diets or if they had

any alternative terms, these participants declined primarily because they felt it wasn't worth the

stress.

"We just have to pick and choose our battles, and that one is a guaranteed loss." ~ Tara, participant diagnosed with celiac disease

27

In the questions addressing levels of active engagement within the local gluten-free community,

only one participant attends the local GIG chapter meetings on a regular basis. The rest of the

women either have never attended or have only made one meeting early into their transition from

gluten. Their decisions (as opposed to the word "choices") to live gluten-free are very personal

experiences and they don't villanize gluten or those who continue to eat it. Their decisions are

based on their own particular health needs and not moral issues.

Overall, these individuals do not take part in community events, but they all frequent

restaurants determined to be gluten-free or "celiac-friendly" through word-of-mouth or personal

trial-and-error. Same is true for those who are not diagnosed with celiac who mention that they

try to choose the gluten-free menu options, unless they "get lazy." All participants seek out new

products and confess to relying too heavily on many of the new gluten-free processed products.

They view Portland as a very supportive city for gluten-free living and identified it as known for

its reputation for supporting "unique" lifestyles and a strong "foodie culture." However, a few

participants have been successful in finding an increasing number of options in other parts of the

country through traveling, although maintaining their diets are difficult on the road and not

having celiac allows them to occasionally "fall off the produce cart."

None of the participants believe gluten-free living is a traditional food fad, primarily

because of the increasing numbers of people they are hearing reap self-reported health benefits in

a short amount of time on the diet. For the most part, the term lifestyle was considered to

provide a broader context to focusing on living "healthy" and when offered the alternative term

"gluten-free movement", all but one woman responded by stating it sounded "too political." It

was also clear that living gluten-free was more than just an idea or hobby, but true commitments

they each make to seek nutritional and dietary options whenever possible. The complexity of

28

their views on living a healthy life, as opposed to only focusing on gluten, is succinctly

expressed by one interviewee:

"A gluten-free lifestyle permeates all aspects of life rather than just one issue."

~ Lauren, naturopath, "gluten-sensitive"

Although the study participants recognized the importance of political and social action

necessary in monitoring quality and information provided through the food industry as a whole,

they did not initially see anything political about their gluten-free lifestyles. Through the course

of the study, all participants created new personal meanings about the politics of gluten and how

their individual roles as patients, health practitioners, and consumers collectively provide

momentum for the vitality of Portland's gluten-free lifestyle community.

Discourse, meanings and re-discovered power The overwhelming themes of the reviews from these two sets of participant sources of

information revolve around what constitutes 'legitimate' health information and the recognition

of a patient's role in making health care decisions. The allopathic and federally-endorsed

materials speak to a patient's responsibility for communicating clearly with their health

providers, making sure to keep all appointments and following through with physician-directed

treatment plans. In contrast, the non-medical participants draw from a wider variety of health-

related sources that address gluten-intolerance as primarily the responsibility of the

patient/individual to learn more about. Viewing 'health' in a more multi-faceted or 'holistic'

context, these resources coming to community members from outside the more conventional

health systems, encourage individuals to pursue whole food diets, seek a variety of health

29

supportive options rather than disease-specific, and reinforce individual ownership or agency

over one's health.

The tone of the narratives from the structured interviews began, as expected, in a less-

than-favorable one as meanings of politics were explored early on. However, the fact that all

interviewees did experience a shift in the meanings they applied to politics at the end of the study

indicates how empowering the opportunity for reflection and exchange of knowledge can truly

be for community members. As this study initiated a small-scale, short-lived discourse around

the subject of politics, placed within the historical context of currently living gluten-free here in

Portland, the evolution or application of what politics means in one situation and what it means

in the context of living gluten-free was a valuable insight for the interviewees to consider up to

the end of the data collection period. By the end of the tenth week, the follow-up phone

conversations confirmed that; what is typically believed among individuals living with health

challenges is that the more they 'know', the more in control they are in managing their health.

However, rather than seeing themselves at the receiving end for knowledge to be absorbed, they

were surprised at the reassurance that their power as gluten-free community members produces

knowledge , that in turn influences the creation of new meanings about gluten-free living. The

resulting power created through meanings and knowledge as a means to maintain as sense of

physical control or determination, however, is only useful when there is an outlet, network,

associate, provider or affiliation to see and use the results. (Hengehold, 2007: 6)

The interviewees were very focused towards their individual gluten-free decisions, which

possibly supported their initial rebuke of how their daily decisions and actions to live gluten-free

could be viewed as political. Yet, a noticeable contradiction arose time and again where they

would begin their response as "I" statements and finish with "we" statements, such as " I think as

30

patients, we need..." and "I know that, from my experience, we need more doctors have to be

willing to work with us..." Living with health challenges is a solo venture to some degree and

public health education programs and policies consistently send messages that imply, as

interpreted by one participant (a naturopath) during a casual conversation: "If we are sick, then

we need to work harder to be healthier."

By preferring the term lifestyle to politics or social movement, it suggests that living

gluten-free for many local Portlanders is less of a stand to make publicly and more of a way of

life that encompasses more that just how their bodies fail them. Although those study

participants who are not diagnosed with celiac or wheat allergies probably don't see their bodies

as 'broken', they do see themselves as being responsible for their own health and that gluten-free

living is not just a food fad, political movement or one of those "unique Portland lifestlyes"...it's

what they can do for themselves and value how much their health means to them and with those

they share their lives.

Gluten-free as a local social movement

"For many people, it is a health issue and not a political one." Janet, RN and gluten-intolerant The social actions embedded within living gluten-free at the individual levels seem to indicate

that there are, indeed, submerged political undertones (or meaningful practices) stemming from

gluten-free discourses shared in this diverse community. As the local use of the term "lifestyle"

implies an empowerment of agency or self-determination, the views of politics as a whole is

quietly evolving simply through a collection of shared individual actions (such as 'responsible

31

consumerism') that build 'organically-created' political power and are chipping away at existing

social systems while planting the seeds for new ones.

It appears that the Portland gluten-free community not only knows they are 'voting' with

their wallet, but they are also building an awareness in valuing their own collection of language,

belief systems, individual roles, presumed individual responsibilities and overall social

contributions. Participants expressed a strong desire to strengthen gluten-free education and

community resources for themselves, as well as anyone in the Portland area, but their initial

motivations first address the meanings associated with their own health and gluten-free, personal

values and individually-focused goals. It is because of these multiple practices and

"trajectories", as defined by Starr (2010), that may contribute to the staying power of gluten-free

living beyond another food fad and continuing towards new norms, structures and opportunities

for gluten-challenged and health-focused Portlanders in the long run.

The meanings these participants have about their own gluten-free lives dictate their

actions within their community and they intentionally prefer to make a difference for others

through personal example and without the use of, what they perceive as, traditional political or

social actions. However, when placed into a context that holds relevance to them, these

Portlanders did not shy away from the idea that there is no shame in seeing socio-political action

as part of their gluten-free lifestyles.

Conclusions "The body is molded by a great many distinct regimes; ...it is poisoned by food or values, through eating habits or moral laws; it constructs resistances." ~Michel Foucault (as quoted by Fillingham,1993:104)

32

The findings indicate that there are, indeed, submerged political undertones to be found within

Portland's discourses surrounding gluten-free living. The meanings applied to political practices

are changing from one historical context to another, just as the meanings behind a gluten-free

lifestyle varies from one individual to another. Analysis from this study reinforce the notion that,

by participating in conversations or dialogues surrounding gluten-free and politics, a shift in

individual meanings occur and appear to converge what were once two dichotomous terms

towards a new integration of both politics and lifestyle.

The application of social movement theory to the local gluten-free community

incorporates all three of Melucci's characteristics to some degree and, as the community

continues to evolve, the applications will become even more visible. For now, the "solidarity"

among individuals striving to live gluten-free is apparent in the restaurant reviews on the social

networking sites, the relief in the increased awareness among 'gluten-eaters' that it is a real health

issue, local classes for gluten-free cooking being offered in a variety of locations and even

television shows such as Portlandia characterize their gluten-free 'pride' as they walk along the

designated parade route. The adversarial opposition could be viewed in the context of the

current allopathic medical establishment that has yet to take steps toward additional testing

measures and research to determine more conclusively the affects that gluten does (or does not)

have upon existing chronic conditions or the complications that arise for some individuals who

indicate distress yet are not able to receive a celiac disease diagnosis. Finally, the push against

the current medical and insurance systems as a whole to recognize CAM practitioners as valid

and viable options for those patients who do not meet the celiac diagnosis, but do find treatment

support that are outside allopathic medicine parameters.

33

An additional themes that arose during the course of this study included differences in the

emotional responses to political action among participants. Those individuals facing greater

health restrictions and medical support responded more favorably when realizing their daily

practices in shopping, restaurant patronage, and sharing their knowledge with others new to

gluten-free diets could be considered political action. Learning more about specific practices

within the gluten-free community and engaging them in community-based research methods to

create relevant political or social activities would be a powerful tool in building further gluten-

free public and commercial awareness.

Limitations in this study include restrictions in sample size and demographics; narrowed

location to within Portland and time-frame allowing for only one full interview per participant.

Recommendations are made for a larger study to also include the rural areas of the state,

particularly the Willamette Valley and Eastern agricultural regions where resources and internet

access are more limited.

Individuals seem to recognize that they are practicing what they learn and focusing their

power to influence the management of their health in their daily lives while collectively

contributing to the development of an emerging new social movement that is ripe for future

discourse... simply by living gluten-free.

Works Cited

Beck, M. Clues to Gluten Sensitivity. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 1, 2012, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200393522456636.html

Crigger, K. (2012) The Latest in Gluten-Free Eating, The Healthy Gluten Free Life, Set for Release on February 21st. Online book review article. Retrieved from

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9172968.htm. Fillingham, L. (1993) Foucault for beginners. Danbury, CT: For Beginners LLC. Fox, S. (2011) Peer-to-peer healthcare: Pew Research Center Project. Retrieved from

http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/Pew_P2PHealthcare_2011.pdf.

34

Fuertes, J., A. Mislowack, J. Bennett, L. Paul, T. Gilbert, G. Fontan, L. Boylan. (2007) The physician–patient working alliance. Patient Education and Counseling, 66:29–36.

Hall, S. (1997) 'The work of representation', in S. Hall (ed.) Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage, in association with the Open

University. Hengehold, L. (2007) The Body Problematic. University Park: The Pennsylvania State

University Press. Kingfisher, C. and A. Millard. (1998) Milk Makes Me Sick but My Body Needs It: Conflict and

Contradiction in the Establishment of Authoritative Knowledge. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, 12 (4):447-466.

Kögler, H. (1996) The power of dialogue. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 83-110. McMahon, A., P. Williams and L. Tapsell. (2010) “Reviewing the meanings of wellness and

well-being and their implications for food choice.” Perspectives in Public Health, 130: 282. Melucci, A. (1989) Nomads of the present: Social movements and individual needs in

contemporary society. London: Hutchinson. National Institutes of Health website: http://www.celiac.nih.gov/materials.aspx. Portland Chapter, Gluten-Intolerance Group (GIG) Grain-Damaged Blog. Accessed at:

http://graindamaged.blogspot.com/p/about-us.html Oliver, P. (2010) Foucault: The key ideas. Blacklick, OH: McGraw-Hill Companies. Sapone, et al. (2006) Spectrum of gluten-related disorders: consensus on new nomenclature and

classification. BMC Medicine: 10:13. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/13 Saydah, S. and M Eberhardt (2006) Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Among

Adults with Chronic Diseases: United States 2002. The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, 12 (8): 805-812. Starr, Amory (2010) "Local Food: A Social Movement?" Cultural studies, critical

methodologies, 10 (6): 479. Young, A. .(1976) Some Implications of Medical Beliefs and Practices for Social Anthropology.

American Anthropologist, New Series, 78 (1): 5-24.

35

Gareth Peard

A Look at the Sub-Culture of Beer through the Recent Expansion of Gluten-Free Offerings

In Portland, Oregon craft beer marketing seems to have no limits as the beer scene in this

city sustains dozens of local breweries in addition to imports from all over the world. Interviews

and observations conducted around the city reveal that the upsurge of locally produced gluten-

free beer is affecting the social discourses and practices within the craft beer culture. A recent

news story effectively signaled this movement on May 16th, 2012 when Portland’s Mayor Sam

Adams declared the day and every May 16th henceforth to be “Gluten-Free Beer Day”

(“Portland Mayor Sam Adams Declares May 16 ‘Gluten-Free Beer Day’” Marketwatch.com,

2012). This research intends to answer the question of how current ambiguities about gluten-free

beer are shaping the attitudes of beer makers, sellers and consumers within the subculture,

aiming to reconcile the liminal nature of the commoditization of this alternative product and

specific implications it may have for beer in general.

The theoretical basis for this report comes from Mary Douglas’ book Purity and Danger,

the contents of which evoke an explanation for social practices maintained through structuralism.

For instance, Douglas writes how social institutions proliferate and specialize social control in

modern societies, leading to economic inter-dependence (Douglas 1966: 114). Throughout the

book Douglas touches on many themes, including how social structures develop boundaries

encompassing the meanings and rituals that organize the universe for societies and also help

them to delineate certain ambiguous acts and beliefs as impure, or “dirt” (Douglas 1966). This

report will show that gluten-free beer falls in between these theoretical poles in two different

36

ways. Primarily, it will show gluten-free beer as an anomaly: something that doesn’t quite fit into

clearer patterns within the beer subculture. Relating to Douglas’ structural sense, to many beer-

drinkers, it is not ordinary beer nor is it a naturally gluten-free alternative to beer such as wine,

cider or mead. Secondarily, for those who do wish to consume gluten-free beer for specific

health reasons such as Celiac disease, health knowledge and marketing gimmicks pertaining to

the pureness of gluten-free beer will also be examined through the lens of Douglas.

Setting out to examine the connection between gluten-free beer and social differentiation

requires richly informed data gathered from the local community about knowledge and meaning

formed through cultural practices – in this case ritual activity within the craft-beer subculture.

The research for this investigation was composed primarily of qualitative methods, with

interviewing and participant observation being the principal methods, informed also by brewery

and beer store websites and news pertaining to the topic. The observations and interviews were

conducted in beer-selling and beer-making establishments, particularly those that provide

Oregon craft ales on tap or in bottle, such as breweries, pubs, and beer stores.

The observations commenced at Rogue Hall on the Portland State campus, as Rogue is

one of the largest breweries in Oregon so it was worth the inquiry to see if they serve or have any

plans of creating a gluten-free brew. I asked the bartender and he replied a friendly “no” to both,

either on tap or bottled. He did mention, however, that Rogue makes an array of botanical and

ginger beers at their Buckman Village Botanical Distillery/Brewery located at their Green

Dragon pub on SE 9th Ave. He called the botanical beverages “weird stuff”. Weeks later I

returned to Rogue Hall and the same bartender was able to offer me a taste of the Jasmine Green

Tea Mead made by the botanical brewery. He commented that the mead is made with champagne

37

yeast and, “comes out like a cider.” His remarks inform some of the gluten-free alternatives

being offered at bars, such as cider and mead.

Rogue Hall’s bartender also remarked on the paleo diet, making the association between

the inquiry about gluten-free beer and this diet that lacks gluten, another dietary trend gaining

weight in Portland (Bryant 2004) (Paleo Plan 2012). He mentioned a new restaurant on NW 21st

Avenue called Dick’s Kitchen, whose menu boasts the theme of locally sourced food based on

the diet that cavemen likely ate. This pro-Paleolithic diner was the next setting for a spontaneous

interview.

Over a couple of sliders at the counter in Dick’s Kitchen I managed to talk briefly with

the manager about the restaurant’s theme and gluten-free beer options. She handed me the menu,

which contained on the back a long explanation written by the owner about the paleo diet. She

told me that cavemen did not consume any gluten, nor grains or starches. The main purpose of

the visit was to find out about the restaurant’s gluten-free beer choices: Anheuser-Busch’s

Redbridge and one of Portland’s newest breweries, Harvester Brewing. The manager earnestly

proclaimed that Harvester is the only legally made gluten-free beer produced in the region,

pointing out the restaurant’s preference for locally produced offerings. This concern over what

legally constitutes a gluten-free beer would end up becoming a recurring theme in these

observations, along with serious dispositions when informants were prompted to speak about the

topic.

Two helpful websites when searching for gluten-free breweries in the Portland area are

Glutenfreepdx.wordpress.com and Glutenfreeportland.org. The former site confirmed what the

manager at Dick’s told me: Harvester Brewing is so far the only dedicated completely gluten-

free microbrewery in Portland (Harvester Brewing 2012). Despite the fact that they brewed their

38

first batch of beer just this past winter (December 2011), their website sports a long list of pubs

and stores that are already offering their gluten-free beer.

Dick’s Kitchen’s manager did mention that the restaurant was considering serving Craft

Brew Alliances’ new line of gluten-free beers, Omission. In accordance with

Glutenfreeportland.org, she explained that these beers are made with gluten that is then extracted

at the end of the brewing process. A press release from March 26th on the website introduces the

newest line of gluten-free beers in Oregon brewed by the alliance comprising Widmer Brothers

Brewing Co., Redhook Ale Brewery and Kona Brewing Company (Omission Beer 2012).

After Dick’s Kitchen it was onto Harvester Brewing on SE Lincoln and 7th, where the

brewmaster, Liam1, offered some of his time for an interview. Liam began to describe his

motivations for opening the all-exclusive gluten-free brewery. A long-time home brewer, he

began working on a gluten-free homebrew for a friend who had been diagnosed with Celiac

Disease. Liam explained that one time she was helping him bottle one of his homebrews when,

“the tops of her feet broke out in a rash and were cracked and bleeding from it,” referring solely

to the exposure on the skin with regular beer.

Later, Liam’s wife decided to go gluten-free to see if the diet would help get rid a long-

time rash. After reading up on gluten issues Liam said he found a connection between Irish

descendants and problems digesting gluten. “Three of her grandparents are from Ireland, and so

my father-in-law had MS and died from colon cancer. Those are two closely connected issues.”

According to Liam, his wife’s health improved significantly after trying the diet. “We were

trying to have kids for five years. And she went on a gluten-free diet, and she was pregnant two

months later. I got to witness all of this stuff so much that it’s very convincing for me.”

1 Liam is a pseudonym

39

I asked Liam about other accounts he has heard from beer-drinkers complaining about the

side effects of regular beer. Bloating, cramping, and powerful headaches were three prominent

conditions he says he frequently hears from people. He told me about a beer buyer from a local

store who attested to experiencing sinus issues such as stuffiness and irritation after drinking a 12

ounce beer. Referring to Harvester ales, the buyer said, “when I drink your beer I get no side

effects.”

As for himself, Liam said he has no problems digesting regular beer or gluten foods, but

claims that gluten products are never allowed on site in his brewery so that his product will not

be contaminated. “Me and (Jerry2, his co-brewer) both go over to Apex and have a beer after

work. We don’t bring any beer in here, even in a sealed bottle. We don’t bring sandwiches from

home. We don’t bring pizza here. No lunch; nothing!” They also take full precaution with their

brewing equipment.

Liam attested to encountering discourses that criticize the commoditization of gluten-free

beer. “We work our own tastings, like Spring Beer & Wine Fest, and we would get people who

would come up to us, look around and say, ‘Oh, this whole gluten thing is stupid.’ Or, we get

people who’ll just completely mutter angry things as they walk past us.” Liam said he is fine

with this dissent because every time they do a tasting they meet twenty or more people who are

“super excited” that they are providing more gluten-free beer choices for the community.

“People are so happy about us. It’s awesome. The best part of what we’re doing is that people are

psyched.”

As stated earlier, Harvester’s approach to making gluten-free beer is far different from

the Craft Brew Alliance. Omission Beer is brewed with barley just like traditional recipes, with

the gluten being enzymatically removed at the end of the brewing process using a “centrifuge 2 Jerry is a pseudonym

40

and DE filter” (Omission Beer 2012). At Widmer Brothers’ Gasthaus Pub on N. Interstate

Avenue I received a fair portrayal of how foggy the conclusions were at that moment. The

bartender himself mentioned that there are currently no clear regulations stipulating what makes

a beer gluten-free. Apparently to this barkeep, until these regulations are made clear, the gluten-

free lager and pale ale that Widmer is producing are good enough for the current standards.

The website dedicated to the gluten-free Omission Beer asserts that each batch of the

Alliance’s beer is tested using the R5 Competitive ELISA beer test, part of international

regulations put forth by Codex Alimentarius Commission. The commission came into being in

1963 through cooperation between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) in response to the growing importance of internationally

accepted food standards (Shubber 1972: 631). The Omission website boasts that every beer

contains well below the international gluten-free standard of twenty parts-per-million or less. In

fact, each bottle of Omission contains a date pertaining to the batch from which that bottle came.

Consumers are able to enter this date into the website and see the test results of that actual beer

for themselves, in order to, “take comfort in knowing that your beer is gluten-free.” The webpage

also states that, despite being made with barley, the beer is only available in bottles in order to

avoid any cross contamination, which confirmed why Omission was not available on tap at the

Gasthaus Pub (Omission Beer 2012). These ambiguous assertions about the pureness of

Omission beer relate to the secondary thesis posited in this research, showing current debate over

the validation of what is unpolluted gluten-free beer.

Liam said that years ago he and his partner looked into the process of extracting gluten

from beer, but he thinks it’s a terrible idea, and actually said he recently spoke with one of his

customers who claims to have gotten sick from the Omission gluten-free ale. Liam added that

41

there are currently no conclusions on whether the gluten-free beer made by means of the

extraction process really contains no gluten.

After these initial observations, news emerged that helped to clarify where the future of

gluten-free beer might stand. The Department of Treasury Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade

Bureau (TTB) issued a ruling on May 24 that provides clearer regulations for the labeling of

gluten-free alcohol products (“TTB Issues Ruling on Gluten Labeling for Alcohol Beverages”,

TTb.gov 2012) (“Gluten Free Ruling”, Bevlog.com 2012). The ruling concludes the, “TTB will

not allow products made from ingredients that contain gluten to be labeled as “gluten-free”.

Because TTB is concerned about the potential health consequences associated with the

consumption of gluten by individuals with celiac disease and, because there are currently no

scientifically valid testing methods available to accurately measure the gluten content of

fermented products, we will only allow these products to be labeled with a statement that they

were processed to remove gluten but that the product may still contain gluten” (“TTB Issues

Ruling on Gluten Labeling for Alcohol Beverages”, Ttb.gov 2012). In other words, the ruling

clearly states that the labeling of Craft Brew Alliance’s Omission beers and will need some

rethinking.

Nonetheless, representatives of Widmer were still pouring their Omission Lager and Pale

Ale at a gluten-free beer tasting that took place at Belmont Station in southeast Portland on June

7. The event was advertised as the Gluten Free Taste-Off as part of Portland Beer Week,

providing every gluten-free beer available in Oregon for sampling. Liam from Harvester was in

attendance to pour samples of his gluten-free Pale, Red and Dark Ales, flanked to his one side by

the Widmer representatives and Belmont Station owner Dave3 to the other. The store and

adjoining pub was crowded with customers and beer-tasters, with one employee mentioning it to 3 Dave is a pseudonym

42

be the biggest turnout for a beer tasting in quite some time. Despite a couple weeks having

lapsed since the TTB’s ruling on gluten-free labels, the Widmer representatives were still letting

people know that on omissionbeer.com every single bottle may be checked for its’ compatibility

with the ELISA standard of less than 20 gluten parts-per-million (Omission Beer 2012).

Belmont Station’s owner Dave agreed to an interview after the tasting. Earlier in my

participant observations a former Belmont Station employee pointed out that Dave is an investor

in Harvester Brewing. Dave told me that as a beer-store owner he could see the trend of more

people looking for gluten-free beers, and he became impressed with Liam’s Pale Ale after

attending an a event where Liam was pouring some of his home-brew recipes.

Dave said that when he first became acquainted with Liam’s ale he would never drink the

other six or seven gluten-free beers available at the time, and thought hypothetically, “well,

that’s it. If I can’t take gluten I’m not going to drink beer.” After tasting Liam’s Pale Ale he

became intrigued and said it was the first gluten-free beer that he would actually consider

drinking recreationally, as someone who drinks beer. Harvester was looking for investors, and

Dave liked the idea of investing in things and people he knows something about, as opposed to

simply going through a stockbroker. “Because I own a beer store I could see the trend of more

people looking for gluten-free beers. I could see the market and I could see it was going there.”

Furthermore, Dave was influenced by Liam’s brewing standards. “What impressed me

about (Liam) was his purity idea. We know that people are contract brewing in breweries that

make this, that and the other, and his (idea) was - no gluten enters the brewery. We want it to be

pure from start to finish. Everything that comes in is certified gluten-free. I just like that whole

concept of ‘this is our mission-it’s pure’.”

43

As for the proliferation of gluten-free products in Portland, Dave said he is aware of some

of the self-diagnosis that leads to people going gluten-free, but claimed to not have enough

knowledge and to not take any position on the lifestyle choices of others. “There are a lot of

theories on that, but that’s for other people to (work out). It’s our place as a retailer to provide

people with the stuff that they want. We get the stuff they want and they come in and give us

money for it. I don’t quiz them. Who am I to judge?”

Dave also claimed to not have encountered many discourses against the proliferation of

gluten-free beer, however, observations during and after the taste-off revealed that these negative

opinions are quite easy to find. One customer brought a couple of gluten-free bottles to Belmont

Station’s bar to be opened for tasting, saying, “I’d like to try some of this stuff here.” This

prompted a comment from someone else at the bar, saying, “It’s good that you call it stuff,

because it’s not beer. Beer has barley in it-it’s a key ingredient.” Another patron looked at the

crowd of people that had come for the tasting and said, “I bet out of all these people here there’s

maybe one Celiac.”

Later I asked another customer if he liked any of the gluten-free beers he tried, and he

commented that the only choices he liked were the Widmer lager and pale. When asked why he

gave his reason that the Widmer brews were uniquely the only beers made like real beer, with

barley, and the only ones that tasted like real beer. This same patron mentioned that beer made

from sorghum became popular as a less-costly alternative during World War II, but it was

“clearly inferior” to that made from barley.

Going back to Dave’s interview, the Belmont Station owner has a “why not” attitude that

he thinks has always been relevant in the craft-beer scene. “Craft beer culture is into

experimentation all the way around. Every traditional style has been revived, and they’re

44

constantly putting new ingredients in beer, so craft-beer culture is the perfect place for gluten-

free experimentation.”

Mary Douglas’ book Purity and Danger provides a theoretical framework by which these

observations on the commoditization of gluten-free beer in Portland may be analyzed. Douglas

structures the book around cultural propensities towards practices considered pure as well as

coping methods for the impure. Her theme of dirt incites revelations, “on the relation of order to

disorder, being to non-being, form to formlessness, life to death” (Douglas 1966: 7). These

binary oppositions demonstrate the common tendency of societies to organize the universe for

the purpose of grounding and orienting daily life. The differentiation of impure practices helps

establish the boundaries and borders that delineate ambiguous acts as outside the sphere of

common values.

Within the Portland beer scene gluten-free beer currently does not fit into a fully

recognized sphere that orients normality, nor that which establishes acts and meanings deemed as

dirty. Instead, gluten-free brew occupies the interstices for many beer enthusiasts, confirming

Douglas’ idea of how marginalized acts and meanings that fall within uncategorized, interstitial

grooves within a community challenge the sense of security for which contemporary society

yearns. For emphasis she quotes Sartre, writing, “it is simply the old yearning for

impermeability…there are people who are attracted by the permanence of stone. They would like

to be solid, impenetrable, they do not want change: for who knows what change might bring?”

(Douglas 1966: 200).

Further illuminating this theme, gluten-free beer can be viewed as neither within the

liminal border of what beer enthusiasts consider real beer, nor clearly encompassed within the

sphere of activity considered to be “dirt”. The bartender at Rogue offered mead as a gluten-free

45

alternative and mentioned cider as well. Some of the customers at Belmont Station emphasized

the requisite of barley in real beer, throwing the gluten-free “stuff” into some other realm. Liam

also gave a quote from a beer-blogger who had toured his brewery that said, “If I had a problem

digesting gluten I would just drink wine.” Even Dave admitted that before trying Liam’s Pale

Ale he felt the same about gluten-free beer, “If I can’t take gluten I’m not going to drink beer.”

All of these discourses evidence the transitional process that gluten-free beer is undergoing.

The social longing for solid impenetrability and clarity in classifying social acts and

beliefs, evoking Sartre, can also be seen in the literature of the TTB ruling: “TTB understands

that there is a desire both on the part of consumers and industry members for information

regarding the gluten content of alcohol beverages. Consequently, TTB has issued a Ruling to

allow industry members to provide interested consumers with the best available information

regarding the gluten content of their products so that those consumers may make an informed

decision about whether to consume the product” (“TTB Issues Ruling on Gluten Labeling for

Alcohol Beverages”, Ttb.gov 2012). This dispute over what makes a “purely” gluten-free beer

also falls into the struggle for clarity and disambiguation, with different approaches to production

and commoditization leading to the implementation and further altering of the accepted

knowledge and standards that came into being through the ruling.

Attitudes varied across the board amongst the different informants within the craft-beer

scene, with many of them alluding to their own evaluation of the topic. More or less, each

informant expressed the importance of their own opinions as contributing to the process towards

resolution that these gluten-free beer issues are undergoing. This range of perspectives correlates

with chapter 6 of Purity and Danger, where Douglas elicits ethnographical observations made by

46

Vic Turner concerning a local, personal view of a whole social system, “in which individual

actors are aware of a greater or smaller range of inclusiveness” (Douglas 1966: 125).

Informants and interviewees around the city share what they know about gluten, Celiac

Disease, alternative diets, the beer-making process, and the whole assortment of knowledge and

beliefs about gluten-free products and the purpose of their commodification. As Douglas

explains, the view of the whole social system may never perfectly correlate with that of the

interviewer and observer, but the main narratives and stories in play can be outlined and traced.

“They do not all have the same idea of what particular level of structure is relevant at a given

moment. They know there is a problem of communication to be overcome if there can be any

society at all. By ceremony, speech and gesture they make a constant effort to express and to

agree on a view of what the relevant social structure is like. And all the attribution of dangers

and powers is part of this effort to communicate and thus to create social forms” (Douglas 1966:

125).

Reflecting Douglas’ theoretical basis onto gluten-free beer, it is apparent that, as she

explains, social differentiation combined with technological advances and specialization leads to

ever-increasing forms of social control. Numerous “dangers” emerged through the

commoditization of gluten-free beer. For example, the Department of Treasury’s ruling on

gluten-free labeling of alcohol products prompted Dave to further inquire into the tasters’ levels

of gluten-sensitivity. He claimed to warn customers who are actual Celiacs before letting them

sample the Omission Pale or Lager, suggesting Douglas’ analysis of modern societies as

compared to lesser-developed populations in chapter 5 of Purity and Danger: social

differentiation prompting awareness and self-consciousness. She writes, “with differentiation go

special forms of social coercion, special monetary incentives to conform, special types of

47

punitive sanctions, specialized police and overseers and progress men scanning our

performance” (Douglas 1966: 114). The Codex Alimentarius Commission standards and the

TTB Ruling both reveal this veracity, in addition to traditional presuppositions of what makes a

beer a beer. Furthermore, other dangers are found in the social discourses among beer enthusiasts

who are more or less skeptical of letting gluten-free beer into the club.

In conclusion, evidence gathered thus far correlates with class discussion and Douglas’

theme on how interstitial elements outside of the agreed norms may be considered dangerous by

some players viewing it as a recreating and reorganizing threat, having potential implications on

social environments. (Douglas 1966). Furthermore, this report finds a strong association between

individual narratives and views of social forms and the inevitability of a multitude of these

discourses to evoke delineation and distinction of practices and beliefs.

Works cited

“Beer’s Great Gluten War Heats Up.” : Is the Top Selling Gluten-free Beer Gluten-free Enough? Are Its Competitors Beer? Willamette Week. Web. 12 June 2012. <http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-28751-beers_great_gluten_w.html>

Bryant, Vaughn M. “Eating Right: Lessons learned from Our Prehistoric Ancestors.” Reflections On Anthropology: A Four-Field Reader. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2004: chapter 7, Early Hominids: 88-100.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. New York: Routledge, 1966. Print. “Gluten-Free NWPA.” Deschutes Brewing. Web. 25 April 2012 < http://www.deschutesbrewery.com/brew/gluten-free-nwpa> “Gluten Free Ruling.” Bevlog.com Web. 12 June 2012 <http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/malt-beverage/gluten-free> “Harvester Brewing.” Harvester Brewing. Web. 25 April 2012

<http://www.harvesterbrewing.com/> Omission Beer. Craft Brew Alliance. Web. 1 May 2012. <http://omissionbeer.com/test-result/> “Omission Beer Press Release.” « Gluten Free Portland Oregon. Web. 25 April 2012

<http://glutenfreeportlandoregon.org> “Paleo Plan.” Paleo Plan. Web. 2 May 2012. <http://www.paleoplan.com/> “Portland Mayor Sam Adams Declares May 16 “Gluten-Free Beer Day”.” Marketwatch.com.

Web. 12 June 2012. <http://www.marketwatch.com/story/portland-mayor-sam-adams-declares-may-16-gluten-free-beer-day-2012-05-16>

Shubber, Sami. “The Codes Alimentarius Commission under International Law.” The

48

International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 24.4 (1972): 631-655. “TTB Issues Ruling on Gluten Labeling for Alcohol Beverages.” Department of the Treasury:

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. Press release: TTB Ruling 2012-2. Web. 12 June 2012. < http://www.ttb.gov/press/fy12/press-release12-4.pdf.