<<Disclaimer:  Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

In message Wed, 4 Jan 1995 16:21:25 PST,
  "Donald D. Kasarda" <[log in to unmask]>  writes:

> Teff is a
> grass, but is likely to be safe for celiac patients on the basis of being
> more closely related to corn, sorghum and millet than to wheat, rye,
> barley, oats. Quinoa, amaranth, and buckwheat are not grasses, not even
> monocots, and so distantly related to wheat that, on that basis, they are
> unlikely to be active in celiac disease, although individuals may not
> tolerate them for some other reason.

Thank you for responding to my original query.  When I said that I wouldn't
try foods without knowing their taxonomic affiliation, it was mostly to weed
out things like spelt, triticale, and kamut--things so closely related to
wheat, rye, etc. as to be instantly suspected of containing gluten.

I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning about the foodstuffs that are
not closely related to the wheaty grasses being safe just because they are
not closely related.  That does not preclude them containing similar
chemical compounds.  For example, I beleive that plant pigments such as the
anthocyanins (that give the red and purple colors to african violets among
other things) are widely distributed in many plant families.  Of course it
does seem less likely that a plant protein (gliadin in gluten) should be
distributed in dicots as well as monocots.  However, I have read (though the
source escapes me) that buckwheat does contain a substance that closely
resembles gliadin, which might explain why most celiacs I know who have
tried buckwheat, have had nasty reactions.

Another thought about why people might react to buckwheat and not to rhubarb
(same family) is that the part of the plant being consumed has a great deal
to do with its chemical constituents.  Seeds and grains contain relatively
higher amounts of proteins and fats to nourish the developing seedling,
along with substantial starchy reserves.  This simply isn't true of most
plants' vegetative parts (ie stems in the case of rhubarb).

Until someone does systematic dietary trials of foods such as millet,
buckwheat, etc., or chemical tests that show absolutely no gluten or
gluten(or gliadin)-like compounds, I have to trust my instincts and refuse
to eat things that produce the same symptoms as eating wheat, rye, barley,
etc. I have been careful to prepare almost all of the foods I eat from
scratch (though I do use commercially ground flours), so I believe the risks
of contamination by gluten from other sources to be minimal.  It would be
tough to hide a contaminant in kasha (buckwheat) or whole millet grains,
and I have always washed these things prior to cooking them.

I have often wondered how many celiacs really can tolerate corn (Zea mays,
maize).  The studies I've seen on it were done in the U.K. on what we in the
U.S call corn starch, and concluded that it did not provoke a celiac
reaction in most people.  I understand that the definitions of what is or is
not "gluten-free" are more relaxed in Britain than they are in the U.S.,
and that they allow a certain amount of gluten in "gf" products.  Again, if
one looks at plant anatomy, corn starch should have a very low (if not
nonexistant) protein content, and since the offender in celiac disease is
said to be the protein in gluten, it seems that there is a possibility that
corn germ might also contain some gluten-like (or gliadin-like) substance.
Any comments?  I myself have no trouble with corn starch but do have
digestive upsets after eating whole corn (or cornmeal).

I look forward to hearing from others on this listserv.

Laura Johnson-Kelly
[log in to unmask]
265 McGraw Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-8401