Celiac sufferers can safely kiss bread-eaters, study says
People with celiac disease can safely kiss their partners who have just ingested gluten, according to the results of a new study — though researchers recommend drinking some water first.
The analysis, whose findings were presented Monday at Digestive Disease Week 2025, sought to answer a question that its authors say is frequently asked but minimally researched.
'Everyone worries about whether gluten is getting into their food at a restaurant, but no one really looked at what happens when you kiss afterwards,' said Anne Lee, a Columbia University assistant professor of nutritional medicine who presented the data.
'The [previous] advice we gave about kissing and celiac disease was based on precaution and assumptions,' Lee added in the statement. 'We were using our best judgment. I felt it was important to do research to see if there was any actual risk.'
Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder that affects approximately 1 percent of the population, triggered by the consumption of gluten found in bread, pasta, soy sauce and other foods.
Symptoms vary, but they can include gastrointestinal issues such as indigestion, abdominal pain and diarrhea, as well as some non-digestive symptoms including fatigue, joint pain and neurological issues. The disease can also cause long-term damage to intestines without resulting in immediate symptoms.
The study looked at 10 couples that each included one individual with celiac and one without.
In the first part of the study, the person without celiac had 10 saltine crackers, waited five minutes, then kissed their partner for anywhere from 10 seconds to a minute. In part two, the person repeated those steps, but drank 4 ounces of water instead of simply waiting before smooching.
Researchers measured the results through surveys, urine and saliva tests of the partner with celiac to detect for the presence of gluten.
In both parts, the majority of couples reported the gluten found in the saliva of the individual with celiac disease was under the maximum level allowed for food products to be marked gluten free and considered safe: 20 parts per million.
In the first part of the survey — without any water — two individuals reported gluten above that threshold, one of whose urine test also came back positive, but no symptoms were reported in the surveys.
When participants drank 4 ounces of water before the kiss, all participants reported gluten levels under 20 ppm.
'For clinicians, we can now say to patients, 'You don't have to go to extreme measures,'' Lee said.
'Patients with celiac disease can be more relaxed, knowing that the risk of gluten cross-contact through kissing a partner who has consumed gluten can be brought down to safe levels if food is followed by a small glass of water,' she added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dr. Pimple Popper Answers Our Burning Skincare Questions
Dr. Sandra Lee — better known as Dr. Pimple Popper — has built a devoted global following by doing something few dermatologists ever imagined: turning extractions into a viral phenomenon. But beneath the surface-level fascination with popping videos lies a deeper mission of helping people better understand their skin, their conditions, and the treatment options available to them. 'A lot of the things we see as dermatologists affect people both physically and emotionally because it can be embarrassing,' Dr. Lee tells Katie Couric Media. 'It's not just about what's on the surface — it can impact self-esteem.' In our conversation, Dr. Lee opens up about one of the most overlooked skin conditions: hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic disease that causes painful bumps to form under the skin, often in places where skin rubs together, like the armpits or inner thighs. She also talks about how social media is changing the way we think about dermatology, why acne tends to linger for so many women, the skincare myths she wishes would disappear, and what's next in her mission to educate, empower, and yes, pop. Dr. Sandra Lee: HS is a very misunderstood condition. Oftentimes, you get boils and abscesses and scars with tunneling, but they occur in what we call intertriginous areas, or areas where you have creases, like the armpits, under the breasts, the tush, inner thighs, and under the stomach. These areas are pretty easy to hide in general, so people oftentimes will have it, and they'll feel embarrassed, so they don't even reach out for help. They don't even know that other family members may actually have the same condition. But there's been a real increase in knowledge and understanding about this condition, especially over the last 10 years or so. Even during my training, more than 20 years ago, what we were taught about why people got it, the etiology or pathogenesis, was very different from what we believe and know now. One of the benefits of social media is that people can anonymously reach out and talk about their own conditions — what they're experiencing — and realize that others are going through the same thing. That kind of connection can be powerful, especially when someone might otherwise feel embarrassed or alone. That's what social media has done with a lot of other skin conditions — people wear those star-shaped pimple patches on their faces for acne, like, 'Yeah, I know I have a pimple here, and I'm not embarrassed about it.' It helps normalize things. People now have a better understanding of what they might need — or should have done — for whatever condition they have, whether it's a wart, a growth like skin cancer, a cyst, or a lipoma. They have a sense of what can be done and what to expect. I've even had dermatologists tell me that I — and social media — have, in some ways, made their jobs easier, because patients now know what a biopsy looks like or how it's done, and they feel less anxious as a result. I didn't realize so many people were really fascinated by pimple popping and that they enjoyed it specifically. We all know what skin looks like, so most of us are very attuned to it or interested in ways to improve it. So it became a wonderful way to both educate and entertain people — and that's really how it grew. You're sort of releasing something that's not supposed to be there. Like you're putting everything back in place. There's a little bit of an obsession or a compulsion to make everything right. It gives you this weird exhilaration. It's like watching a scary movie or riding a roller coaster. It also goes back to like our primates, where we pick out our skin, we're just compelled to do that. It's fascinating what our bodies do and what they create. All acne, in general, tends to be hormonal. But it tends to stay with women for longer because, in general, because of the surges of hormones that we get throughout our lives. We'll get them when we're ovulating or when we have a period, which tends to be when we tend to break out more. With pregnancy, I'll often get either one or the other. Sometimes you'll see people's acne get better, and sometimes you'll see it get worse. I know, it sucks. Getting a tan before you go out on vacation is better for your skin. No, because I'll tell you, anytime you get any color on your skin, whether it be red or whether you turn a darker color, that's actually your skin scrambling to protect itself. If you have pigment in your skin, it's going to turn darker because it's scrambling to sort of create this umbrella to protect your skin from the sun. So you've already done damage if you have a tan. The most ideal situation is if you go out on vacation and you maybe have been out in the sun, you've been enjoying yourself, but you come back the same color you were when you left. Just get a spray-on tan, that's better for you. A lot of people tell others with acne that they just need to clean themselves a little bit more or scrub their skin better, but that actually does more damage than good. The trick is just to find treatment options that can help you. For instance, Accutane is the best in terms of acne treatments. HS patients have certainly changed the way I view my work and improved the way I treat my patients. It's important to find somebody who is really well-versed in this condition. The reason that I know so much about HS is that it's similar to boils and abscesses, which look like pimples. But with HS,hs what's different is you get theseis tunnels — they're called fistulas — where you'll get an area that has sort of a purulence or a discharge from it, but you'll push it and then it'll come out another area, kind of like gophers that dig holes under the grass. It's very embarrassing. Can you imagine if you were oozing out of like little tunnels under the skin, but then you got a shirt on and you're getting it wet. It's very distressing. We're in the middle of my lifetime show, Dr. Pimple Popper: Breaking Out. That is just my day-to-day — seeing my wonderful patients, who I just love and adore. I also feel a certain responsibility to really get the message out about HS. One of the biggest things you can do to help these HS patients is to make sure that they know that they're not alone and that there are people on their side. This interview was edited for length and clarity. The post Dr. Pimple Popper Answers Our Burning Skincare Questions appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scientists make game-changing discovery that could transform aviation industry: 'I wasn't expecting that'
Researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have discovered several benefits of growing prairie grass for making sustainable aviation fuels. Switchgrass has grown in Midwestern soils for millions of years, but recent studies shared by pinpointed significant economic and environmental considerations for using it to help decarbonize the aviation industry. The switchgrass crop is forecasted to produce up to 230 million dry tons of biomass annually and is a particularly good candidate for SAF due to several beneficial traits. It can be harvested each year for a decade or more without repeated replanting, requires minimal nitrogen fertilizer compared to corn, and provides valuable ecosystem services, the report detailed. The key to these studies is that the U of I researchers focused on finding particularly productive switchgrass cultivars, while tracking fertilizer use and did so at a field scale to gauge real-world potential. "All the data that helps us estimate switchgrass suitability for SAF comes from small plot research or older forage-type switchgrass cultivars. We wanted to test high-yielding switchgrass cultivars on a larger scale to provide a more accurate picture of the benefits these new cultivars provide," said D.K. Lee, senior author of both studies and a professor at the school. The aviation industry is responsible for 2% of the world's carbon pollution, and sustainable aviation fuel has the potential to drastically reduce that number, according to the Department of Energy. Compared with regular jet fuel, using 100% SAF could reduce planet-warming pollution in the industry by up to 94%, depending on which feedstocks are used and how it's developed. The International Civil Aviation Organization reported that over 360,000 commercial flights have already used SAF. Adoption is also growing, going from five million gallons consumed in 2021 to 24.5 million gallons in 2023. To gauge the full economic potential and environmental impact of growing switchgrass for SAF, the researchers spent five years growing five different cultivars across four states, while tracking nitrogen fertilizer use. Should the government be able to control how we heat our homes? Definitely Only if it saves money I'm not sure No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. They found that Independence and Liberty cultivars were the most productive, and they can potentially generate higher profits than conventional row crops on less productive land, according to Nictor Namoi, who worked on the study. Nitrous oxide pollution and nitrate leaching were significantly lower than in corn crops, but that was expected given the reduced amount of nitrogen fertilizer used with switchgrass. There was one quirk with the crop, however, in that it produced more carbon pollution than corn after the second year. "I wasn't expecting that," Namoi said. "But there's a lot more biomass belowground in switchgrass, about five times that of corn." After years of study, the research team felt that the results were positive and that this SAF feedstock crop could help farmers earn more, while contributing to a cleaner environment by reducing reliance on dirtier fuel alternatives. "Our research ensures that we can feed productive cultivars into the SAF production system once the economy and the technology [are] ready to transition," Namoi concluded. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn't Need Your Belief.
American science appears to be in free fall. Donald Trump is eviscerating research funding, persecuting the universities on whose contributions countless scientific fields depend, and vastly complicating immigration for foreign scholars, even going so far as to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students. His administration has threatened to withdraw Columbia University's accreditation and moved to ban Harvard University from enrolling international students. If the United States was once among the best places on earth to do scientific research—home to some of the strongest universities, robust government investment, a spirit of innovation, and an openness to collaboration—scientists are now fleeing our shores in droves for China, Germany, or just about anywhere else. Many who had dreamed of spending at least part of their careers here are choosing not to come. The institutions—from universities to the relevant government agencies—are in disarray. It may take decades for them to recover. Some of this was predictable. Trump has made no secret of his hatred of immigrants, and certain areas of research—from climate change to racial disparities in health care to vaccines—have been stigmatized as 'woke' in MAGA quarters. But it's stunning that priorities like diabetes and pediatric cancer—hardly culture-war land mines—have been equally crushed by Republicans' cost-cutting rampage. How did we get here? 'Trump' is the correct one-word answer, but it's also true that over the last decade and a half, liberal exhortations to 'believe in science' have not helped. The implication is that if you don't believe in it, you're stupid. Trust the experts. Trust Harvard. It should surprise no one that this was not a winning line of 2016, Hillary Clinton declared, 'I believe in science,' when she accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Of course—ominous narrator voice—we all know the outcome of that election. Nevertheless, the slogan caught fire among liberals, and there quickly followed the 2017 and 2018 Marches for Science, inspired by Trump's attacks on climate policy and climate research. The rallies were well attended and well intended, but, as some scientists feared, to many they came across as 'another attack from a condescending elite' and 'a justification for the idea that science is somehow biased.' But the worst was yet to come. During the pandemic, as many Americans, some conservative, some just politically adrift, grew increasingly and often dangerously suspicious of public health recommendations like vaccination, the liberal shrillness on behalf of science reached unprecedented decibels. Reviving Clinton's smug proclamation of 2016, the even more grating 'We believe in science' often appeared on a sign preceded by the scolding reproach 'In this house.' To this day, you can buy pins, T-shirts, mugs, and keychains asserting the belief. And even more cringe variants exist: for example, a T-shirt that says, 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.' More an attitude than an argument, this 'belief in science' claim was snide. It suggested that those on the other side believed in what, witchcraft? Worse, the 'belief' was nearly as impervious to empiricism as its opposition. Few of its loudest adherents would acknowledge nuance or apologize for error, even as it turned out that the disbelieving dummies had at times been correct on some pandemic matters: It was probably never necessary to wear a mask outdoors, schools probably were closed for too long, Covid vaccines may indeed pose some heart risks to young men. These polarized discussions fueled the manifestly unfortunate rise of RFK Jr. and spawned the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has attracted yoga moms and fitness bros alike. Like those who dissented from liberal nostrums during the pandemic, MAHA has been right about some things (microplastics are terrible, our children's mental health is in peril, fluoride in our drinking water has risks as well as benefits) and horribly wrong about others (not vaccinating kids, deliberately allowing bird flu to spread). But the worst thing about 'I believe in science' is its cocky assumption that 'science' can be detached from opinions, interpretations, and, especially, values and politics. That attitude has helped fuel a culture war and left the majority struggling to defend science from the current crew of right-wing wreckers in the White House, who may be wrong about most things but understand that science takes place in an ideological rather than a theological attack on scientists and their institutions is philosophically consistent with his other positions. MAGA hates public goods and collective obligations, as well as foreigners and international cooperation. Without public goods and internationalism, 'science' becomes impossible. The values that MAGA objects to—the grounds on which science is under attack—are precisely the values we must defend. Science requires public money to succeed at scale and is undertaken primarily for the public good. Sure, private companies also do scientific research, but not at the scale that the federal government funds it, and if a private company does something important for society—as Moderna did when it developed Covid vaccines—it's federal government subsidies that make it possible. This system assumes rightly that science benefits all of us. Anyone could need a cure for cancer someday, desire to live in a thriving natural environment, or feel curious about what's going on in outer space. That sense of the public interest is anathema to this White House, which sees little value in the public sector. Trump's worldview is like Margaret Thatcher's—the U.K. prime minister famously said, 'There is no such thing as society'—but his individualism is more extreme because there is no subject more interesting to him, no interest group more pressing, than himself. What good is science to Trump personally? The right also hates science because it requires cooperation across borders. To most effectively advance knowledge and research, individuals from different countries must put their heads together, co-author studies, accept each other's postdoctoral students, visit, immigrate, speak. This sort of exchange makes no sense to MAGA. The assumption of the Trump White House is that people from other countries have nothing to offer us and are, in fact, dangerous to our national security. There's a third, more complicated ideological pillar to Trump's attack on science, and this is anti-elitism. Some science—though hardly the majority—takes place at Ivy League institutions like Harvard. This White House hates such places, not, as it claims, because of 'antisemitism'—MAGA doesn't mind antisemitism and bigotry in other contexts—but because the anti-elitism of attacking the Ivy League always plays well. Selective admissions breed resentment, since most people can't get in. Worse, the Ivies are overwhelmingly dominated by the rich, as extensive studies by The New York Times, Thomas Piketty, and others have found. While the research done by Ivy League scholars is a critical public good, it is also a scandal that institutions more exclusive than most country clubs are allowed to enjoy tax-exempt status and government funding. Those of us to the left of Trump need to welcome a more honest conversation about these institutions. Should they even enjoy nonprofit status? To keep their public funding and tax exemptions, should they have to do more public service? Serve more low-income students, turn their real estate holdings into affordable housing, institute open admissions? Or should they simply be nationalized and run as public institutions? But as usual, the Ivy League is a distraction. Most universities aren't highly selective, many are already public, and most bring substantial economic benefits to their communities. Scientific research is essential to the prosperity of many American cities and towns, where the university is the main employer. College-centered towns are some of the fastest-growing in the United States, and in many places higher education has replaced manufacturing as the industry that brings jobs, money, and vitality. You might say that before this year, science was making America great again. Trump's necrotic attack on all human inquiry imperils all that. What is needed in defense of science is not patronizing assertions of belief but, instead, clear arguments about why we need it. It's odd that the economic rationale is getting short shrift when so many communities depend on STEM and universities. We must also acknowledge that some of the reasons the right hates science are exactly the reasons to defend it. People who don't believe in public goods will not believe in science, but everyone else should. Science saves lives by advancing medicine; millions of Americans know someone whose life or health has been saved by an advance in medical research funded by the federal government. The internationalism of science should also be defended: Bringing the best minds together from around the world is not only crucial for science, it functions as citizen diplomacy, fostering the international understanding and cooperation that is much needed in a world of strife. Harvard University has a P.R. campaign, in defense of itself, making some of these arguments, especially for medical science, but I'm not sure it helps to hear these claims from institutions with so much elitist baggage. Better to hear from Penn State, or the United Auto Workers—full disclosure: my union—which represents not only autoworkers but thousands of scientists, and has been rallying in defense of scientists and science as a good benefiting—and belonging to—the working class. When we fight for science, it's worth going back to the foundations of the value system we are defending. Next month will be the eightieth anniversary of 'Science: The Endless Frontier,' a report made to Franklin Delano Roosevelt by his director for scientific research and development, Vannevar Bush, outlining the critical role that the government should have in the scientific project, and why. In asking for the 1945 report, FDR wrote: 'New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are pioneered with the same vision, boldness and drive with which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life.' That's the kind of energy we need right now.
