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

I had this rejected for being too long, so I'm sending it in 2 parts.

> As for Spelt-- it's not *bad* it just contains gluten! So if you are GF
> , spelt is just another name for wheat/gluten.

Yes, spelt is a variety of wheat.  I think the spelt producers, btw, have done
a great job selling spelt as a "wheat alternative", judging from the number of
comments about spelt I get from health-food store clerks, etc.  When I tell
them that botanically, it is between semolina wheat and the kind used in
bread, they just look at me blankly.

> Teff (I'm quoting from Against the Grain)- the smallest grain in the
> world, the grain of choice a traditional Ethiopian flat bread. It is
> wheat but not gluten free.

> Quinoa- apparently the jury is still out on this one.... I've seen it on
> the store shelves with the label "Gluten Free", but for some reason
> different groups seem to disagree about this one. Either try it & see if
> it causes YOU problems, or if in doubt leave it out!
> I've tried it & had no reaction (I react to stuff like white vinegar &
> mono & diglycerides- fairly sensitive). It does not contain the gliadin
> protein molecular structure that others those w/ sprue.

Teff, from what I can tell, is in that long list of grains that has not been
specifically tested for gluten, but is unlikely to have it.  CSA/USA puts many
such grains on it's no-no list, which the celiac associations of other
countries allow them.

Here's something pertinent from the expert postings site of the Celiac List,
by Don Kasarda:

.      A major division of the plant kingdom is into dicots and monocots.  The
grasses, including wheat, rye, barley, oats, rice, and corn are all
monocots. So all toxic grains are grasses and these are very closely related
taxonomically, yet some relatively close relations are not toxic (rice,
corn).  When we consider species far away taxonomically, such as the dicot
species buckwheat, quinoa, and amaranth, these are so distantly related to
the toxic grains that it seems no more reasonable to ascribe toxicity in
celiac disease to them than to any other plant species.  Every plant would
become suspect. I emphasize that because we have not characterized and
sequenced all the proteins from those species (not likely to be done) and I
don't know of completely satisfactory scientific testing of the grains in
question, we cannot rule out the possibility that a quirk of evolution has
led to some identical amino acid sequences in, say, buckwheat proteins, to
those that are harmful in wheat proteins.  Seems pretty unlikely though.
Anyway, there is no possibility that buckwheat is a close relative of wheat.
Not to say that some people may not be able to tolerate buckwheat, but has
that anything to do with celiac disease?

another excerpt:

Teff is a grass, but is likely to be safe for celiac patients on the basis of
being more closely related to corn, sorghum and millet than to wheat, rye,
barley, oats.  Quinoa, amaranth, and buckwheat are not grasses, not even
monocots, and so distantly related to wheat that, on that basis, they are
unlikely to be active in celiac disease, although individuals may not
tolerate them for some other reason.