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

Hi All,

Much as I enjoyed Tim's thought-provoking post, he makes a couple of points
that I'd like to challenge:

Point #1

>It seems that most of the contributors to the
> list are somewhat in agreement with the reality that we should be able to
> consider corn and rice as safe, since there has never been any historical
> evidence of them being harmfull. It seems equally logical to me then, that
> we can conclude that there is a safe level of gluten which is NON-ZERO.

The storage proteins in rice and corn are not the same as those in wheat,
rye, and barley. Although they are also classed as gluten, these proteins
are only thought to pose a problem to those celiacs when there is a
cross-reaction.

Point #2

> I am a diagnosed Celiac, but I choose to eat foods cooked on
> the same grills and in the same deep fryers etc... as gluten-containing
> foods, provided I remain asymptomatic.

This is based on a common falacy. The assumption appears to be that
symptoms equate with risk. By extrapolation, this assumption suggests
that asymptomatic celiacs would be perfectly safe in consuming gluten.


Point #3

> I live in the Praries and as such I am exposed to wheat
> unintentionally every year at harvest time, simply by breathing the air.

This appears to assume that an intestinal reaction would be reflected in
the mucosa of the lungs. While that is sometimes the case, it may not
apply to all, or even most, celiacs.

Point #4

> (a) For most, if not all Celiacs, there is some NON-ZERO level of gluten
> that IS "tolerable"

Hans Selye, a pioneer in the field of stress, has reported that tolerance
can be developed in response to a variety of environmental hazards. The
invariable result is earlier death. Tolerance may therefore, not be the goal
of all celiacs.

Point #5

> One would assume that they too are unintentionally exposed to glutens,
> so if European Celiacs show little to no increase in symptoms over a
> prolonged period of time utilizing their gluten-free flour, then that
> will be enough to convince me.

I did not attend the international conference in Tampere, several years ago.
However, a number of delegates from Canada, the U.S., and Australia
were in attendance. I was told that a number of these people who live in
zero tolerance countries developed DH lesions and celiac symptoms.
This is quite consistent with the Canadian study in which a majority of
DH and celiac patients who had not previously been eating wheat starch
became symptomatic during the study (1)

Point #6

> The only potentially useful decision that I am aware of that I could
> make, given a study of the European experience, might be to also
> utilize European-standard gluten-free flours.

As indicated above, the literature would not support such a decision,
perhaps due to a developed tolerance.

Point #7

> So for the next 20 years or so, I will work off the premise that I
> need to try and stay 100% gluten-free, but will allow some MINOR cross-
> contamination.

I certainly agree with this point. It makes a great deal of sense to me.

best wishes,
Ron Hoggan

Source:

1. Chartrand LJ, Russo PA, Duhaime AG, Seidman EG. Wheat starch intolerance
in patients with celiac disease. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997 Jun;97(6):612-8.