<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>> At 12:46 PM 9/30/99 -0700, Jessie James wrote: >I've heard double-talk from Merck before --their lawyers have been busy. >Recall the two definitions of gluten, one chemical, the other celiac. The >former is the alcohol soluble part of the grain, namely a portion of the >protein. Hence corn and rice would have this kind of gluten. All "starch" >on the market is defined by the requirement that the residual protein, if >any, be less than such a low percentage as you quote --the Codex limit. >(If it has more, it can't be called "starch", a carbohydrate.) So all they >are saying is any (corn) starch in their products may have residual corn >protein of as much as that. I'm confused by this paragraph. I was under the impression that the glut"e"n in glutenous wheat, rye, barley was entirely different than the glut"i"n in glutinous corn and rice. I thought that the glut"i"nous in corn and rice simply meant they were sticky. I thought it had nothing to do with gluten at all. The e and the i being the markers. These are just things people to confuse us, like telling us that a certain kind of thinking is "Cartesian," when they simply mean it stems from Descartes. Had they wanted us to understand what they meant, they would say it was a "Decartesian" construct :) Or spelling lawyer and liar differently, just so we can tell the difference between the professionals and amateurs :) -vance