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

At 12:46 PM 9/30/99 -0700, Jessie James wrote:

>I've heard double-talk from Merck before --their lawyers have been busy.
>Recall the two definitions of gluten, one chemical, the other celiac. The
>former is the alcohol soluble part of the grain, namely a portion of the
>protein. Hence corn and rice would have this kind of gluten. All "starch"
>on the market  is defined by the requirement that the residual protein, if
>any, be less than such a low percentage as you quote --the Codex limit.
>(If it has more, it can't be called "starch", a carbohydrate.) So all they
>are saying is any (corn) starch in their products may have residual corn
>protein of as much as that.

I'm confused by this paragraph. I was under the impression that the
glut"e"n in glutenous wheat, rye, barley was entirely different than the
glut"i"n in glutinous corn and rice. I thought that the glut"i"nous in corn
and rice simply meant they were sticky. I thought it had nothing to do with
gluten at all. The e and the i being the markers.  These are just things
people to confuse us, like telling us that a certain kind of thinking is
"Cartesian," when they simply mean it stems from Descartes. Had they wanted
us to understand what they meant, they would say it was a "Decartesian"
construct :)

Or spelling lawyer and liar differently, just so we can tell the difference
between the professionals and amateurs :) -vance