<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>> I guess what I had wanted to throw out for discussion, when I first mentioned the peanut people, is do we want to go down the same path? While I am still envious of their current clout, I wonder if companies are stamping "may contain peanuts" on everything just to cover their hynies. I personally don't think that the peanut outcome, at least the current outcome, is a desirable one. If we frighten companies, they'll just stamp "may contain gluten" on everything from chicken legs to aluminum foil and then we are right back where we started ... On the other hand, if we say nothing, and maple syrup, seltzer and chicken legs *really* do have gluten but it isn't labelled, then there's a diagnosis derailment. I know that my glutenous seltzer delayed my diagnosis by at least a month. It does seem like the food allergic people need to unite -- that's the only way [in my peabrain] we'll ever drub into these companies' heads the importance of truth in labels. re: compounding. Thanks to all -- nearly everyone suggested Stokes. I was finally able to speak with a pharmacist, who was wonderful and the Alka Seltzer cold plus arrived in 3 days. No more honk, snort, snuff. The anti-convulsant remains a holy grail. The company does not guarantee GFness ["we do try to use corn starch but from time to time when all the corn in the world has evaporated, we use wheat, please call every 6 days, blahblahblah"] ... but they also will NOT release the powder to a compounder. Unless I'm a dog. woof. [the company will release for compounding for *veterinary* usage only.] So it appears my neuro and/or stokes will have to file a Patient IND with the FDA to force the company to release the powder to Stokes. I've also been told that a compassionate use appeal to the FDA might be addressed more quickly, but the FDA guidelines for compassionate use are pretty strict and I'd have to be dying of something to get quick compassionate usage approval. I'm not a lawsuit-happy person, but the hornery part of me wants to sue the powder-hogging pharmaceutical company for violation of the ADA. Its a stretch, but the IND process will take at least a year .... argh. Thankfully, the pharmacist at Stokes was *very* committed to going through this process, which was a welcome relief. Again, thanks for everyone's suggestions. And, thanks for the rant space. Tracey in Connecticut GF lodging: http://www.innseekers.com/feature.htm