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

First I want to explain why I posted directly back to the list.  I
ran a google search on "wild rice" and gluten.  This is one of he
summaries: 

> The Vegetarian Society UK - Information Sheet - Cereals
> Wild rice is not a rice at all but an American grass used as an ... It
> is the only cereal apart from wheat and barley that has enough gluten
> to make a ...

This is quite a shocker.  While I did read enough of the page to realize
that the "It" in the second sentence referred to rye and not wild rice,
there was nothing in the page to ease my fears about wild rice.

My state of confusion was accurately summarized in this summary from
1991:

  http://www.enabling.org/ia/celiac/grains.html#Taxonomy

> ... in Hitchcock's taxonomy, wheat, rye, and barley are in Tribe 3, 
> oats in Tribe 4, rice in Tribe 9, while Zizanieae is the name of Tribe 
> 10, millets are mostly in Tribe 12, sorghum is in Tribe 13, and maize 
> (corn) in Tribe 14. The tribe number in taxonomy has a limited 
> relationship to evolutionary relationship, but it is moderately safe 
> to say that species with neighboring tribe numbers are more likely to 
> be closely related than those with more distant numbers. Of course, 
> taxonomies are not perfect, but in the absence of detailed molecular 
> analysis of all possible proteins from all possible species, which we 
> are not likely to have in the foreseeable future, they are about the 
> best we have to go on.

> On the basis of Hitchcock's taxonomy then, I would say that wild rice 
> and rice are moderately closely related (approximately as close as 
> wheat is to oats), but both are fairly distant in relationship to 
> wheat, rye, barley, and oats...

As we all know, taxonomy is based on arbitrary characteristics of
the classified organisms, and it is to be expected that sometimes
species are more closely related than they seem.  Today we have available
DNA comparisons that could confirm the relationships described above,
and there are also gluten assays that are used to test the GF status
of foods.  Have either of these tests ever been performed on wild rice?
Apparently not.

Celiac (I decline to label it a disease) was first recognized in Europe
where wild rice is neither grown nor marketed.  Wild rice is native to
North America around the Great Lakes where it was harvested by Indians
and used for food.  It was never used in the same way or to the same
extent that domesticated rice is used in Asia.  In the region of the
world where celiac was recognized and described, wild rice was
completely unknown.

Wild rice appears to be more closely related to rice and
corn than it is to the triticeae grasses that cause us
trouble.  This is encouraging, but it is not certain.  To me the 
strongest evidence for its gluten free status is that it was eaten by
Amerindians who often had difficulty with wheat.  To some tribes
wheat was more deadly than smallpox.

Now for the condensed replies:

> In this game there is obviously misinformation from a couple of types
> of sources:
>
>   - Obsolete information on websites and books
>   - Just outright errors, lies and un-truths, either accidental or
>   on-purpose
>
> One of my friends gave me Bette Hangman's original book, and it is
> historically interesting to read. Some of the information has become
> obsolete in the 17 years since it was published. CS Celiac is also very
> much out of date.
>
> With respect to grains, grain taxonomy - as researched by Donald
> Kasarda - is holding more or less true. Only the triticae are toxic,
> and that is due to the 33mer peptide. Kasarda did not study this, but
> researchers have now zeroed into this peptide as the bad actor.  But
> within the triticae there seem to be a non-toxic sub-family - einkorn
> species. These are the diploid wheat grasses that do not have the 33mer
> peptide. Some bake up into acceptable bread, and most do not.
> Interestingly, they are high in beta carrotine, so the milled flours
> are yellow-gold.
>
> Another interesting development is that the barley prolamine (toxic to
> celiacs) has a peptide fraction that consumes the toxic 33mer peptide
> and renders it non-toxic to celiacs. That is the basis of Alvine
> Pharma's molecule.
>
> As far as wild rice goes, you will find that celiacs consume this
> grain. I certainly do, and I definitely know when something is not
> agreeable. But you have to decide on your own, and I think you have.
>
> Yes, the internet is filled with all sorts of un-truths. I read the
> contents of the list serve and make up my own mind, recognizing that
> there will be unintentional errors...

Here is another thoughtful reply:

> Just because the plant in a different family (zizania) from regular 
> rice (oryza) doesn't mean it is closely enough related to wheat, rye, 
> and barley to be problematic. Oats, corn, sorghum, millet, rice and 
> wild rice are all grasses (as are the gluten-bearing grains), so 
> that, too, is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is the closeness of 
> the relationship with the gluten grains.
> 
> I believe the information on the UK vegetarian site is inaccurate as 
> to the gluten status of wild rice, and the Canadian site seems simply 
> out of date. The US Celiac Sprue Association (not known for being 
> lenient when it comes to what belongs on a gf diet) clearly considers 
> wild rice to be gf <http://www.csaceliacs.org/recipes3.php?id=75>. 
> See also the info page from Children's Hospital in Boston 
> <http://www.childrenshospital.org/clinicalservices/Site2166/mainpageS2166P12sublevel50Flevel39.html>, 
> which has been updated recently enough to reference the current work 
> on setting a US standard definition for gluten-free.

Another refers us to delphiforums:

> Wild rice is not rice, but it is not wheat either.  It is  gluten-free.
> Mireille, co-host of:  _http://forums.delphiforums.com/celiac/start_ 
> (http://forums.delphiforums.com/celiac/start) 

one person quoted from Wikipedia:

> The four species of wild rice compose the genus Zizania (common  
> names: Canada rice, Indian rice, and water oats), a group of grasses  
> that grow in shallow water in small lakes and slow-flowing streams.  
> Often, only the flowering head of wild rice rises above the water.  
> True rice, genus Oryza, is also a grass; the two genera Oryza and  
> Zizania are closely related, sharing the tribe Oryzeae.
> 
> Perhaps not the best source on the web but the only one I found that  
> compared the two rices and wasn't dedicated to recipes. We eat many  
> types of grasses (including corn). I have never heard that wild rice  
> has either gluten inherently in it or that Celiacs have a problem  
> with eating it. Perhaps you do, but please, let's not be spreading  
> rumors about a safe food. Thanks.

One person shot back with an immediate reply:

> Since wild rice is grass, and not in the same family as anything with
> gluten, why would we celiacs react to it? I've never met anyone who
> has. 

Why would we not react to it?  Wheat, barley, oats and rye are all grasses.  
I react to grasses in the same way as poison oak.  When a neighbor mows his 
lawn, I sneeze.  I have met other celiacs with the same problem.  That is 
why I asked the question.  What surprises me is that I can eat rice and corn.

I am disappointed that some readers feel that asking
questions is the same thing as disparaging the manufacturer.  I have
always held to the view that more discussion there is about a product,
the more the manufacturer benefits.  This is especially true when we can
report back that the product is indeed gluten free.

*Support summarization of posts, reply to the SENDER not the CELIAC List*
Archives are at: Http://Listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?LIST=CELIAC