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

Dear listmates...

Here is a good example of why we have reactions to products
that we are told are GF.

This was in response to an email I sent to a company in Australia
that sells Lyprinol, a new product derived from green-lipped mussels,
 for arthritis:

"Dear Vicki, I have just received word from the company who makes the
Lyprinol (HPME), the following is their response:

My apologies for not responding to your request earlier however, I
wanted to make double sure of the answer before I responded.  Therefore,
please find below the answer to your question as outlined from our
encapsulators;

*     *     *     *     *

The only wheat derived ingredient is the Sorbitol Syrup in the shell and
the supplier provided us with the following statement :

Here is the response from our Sorbitol syrup supplier (0588) with regard
to gluten content.  The outcome is that the "material   is highly
purified and contains less than 200ppm wheat gluten. It may thus be
defined as gluten-free as set out in the new, proposed Codex Standard.
It can therefore be considered suitable for most coeliacs."

And therein lies the problem, listmates.  Gluten-free doesn't
necessarily mean gluten-free.  It can mean less that a certain number of
parts per million (ppm) of gluten in a product.

The CSA/US once replied to a question I had about this, too, telling
me that manufacturers can call a product gluten-free if it has less than
a certain level of gluten.

Anyone have any ideas on what we can do about this? I think there is
a real truth in labelling problem here.  At least I found out about this
product in time.  I am very sensitive.

Thanks - and Happy Labor Day!

Vicki