<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>
 
> The Center for Science in the Public Interest, and its publication the
> Nutrition Action Healthletter, which is over 25 years old (about) and
ETC
> Thanks for your message.  We have never investigated gluten/wheat
> intolerance in any detail.  I'd welcome messages regarding the
> ingredients that give sensitive people the most trouble...and thoughts
ETC
 
This is a post I'd like to see more often! There we have one good email
address to write to: [log in to unmask]
 
Frankly, I don't understand why we have to discuss the issue of
"legislation or not". It all comes to this:
 
It's 4:00am and you are travelling in a car, you have this out of this
world tooth pain and it is imposssible to concentrate. You stop on a gas
station and when you go to the drug section, you can see 2 things:
 
If legislation was done, at least you would see (at the minimum level)
the message "Gluten free" or "Not gluten free" on the label of the pain
reliever you desesperately need. You would make your choice in seconds
and buy what you want.
 
If legislation was NOT done, and you forgot your "which drugs are safe
list from this list", you might prefer to suffer a couple of hours more.
 
Sometimes it is hard to say "I can choose what I want based on the
ingredients" or "I'll just call the company".
 
It's the same with food. I think we should ask on the minimum to have
those statements: Gluten free or Not gluten free. "Low in Gluten" is
controversial, it will be just like the "low fat" statement. Here I
would prefer a number (actual weight) and no percentages. It would be
nice to see something like this:
 
"Brand chocolate bar" Not Gluten Free, 30ug (micrograms) of gluten per
serving.
 
I've read that some people argue that prices might go up. It could
happen but the impact won't be that great. The benefits far outweight
the trouble.
 
A simple rule, if followed can save millions of dollars: Say for example
"every source of wheat, barley, oats, etc must attach a red dot on it's
product". So if company X when buying it's ingredients for it's
processed product, when one with a red dot comes along just put a red
dot on the product too. The chain reaction is straight forward. We go to
the market, and see two things, products with red dots and products
without them. That's it. (Of course, a red dot is good but a statement
would be better, like "Product containing gluten").  If the companies
have this type of information they don't even have to spend a penny in
research to know if the final products are GF or not.
 
How about the message in every Coke bottle? It says
"phenylketonurics: contains phenylalanine"..
I don't think there are so many of these guys around.
 
How about the message in Aspirin?
"Children and teens should not use this for chicken pox or flu because
of Reye Sindrome, a RARE but serious illness, etc.
 
I just think a simple "GF" or "Not GF" statement on the nutrition facts
label will save everyone time and money.
 
I apologize for the length of my message, but I just had to say it.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1996~~
5' J A V I E R   A L Z E R R E C A       ====---------- -----------====
   | | | | | |   | |   | | | | | |            [log in to unmask]
   A C E R R E Z L A   R E I V A J  5'   ====---------- -----------====