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

I wrote (which started this dialogue):

>>My understanding is the Coeliac Society of the UK gets funding from the
>>manufacturers of this proprietary wheat starch.

Scott Adams wrote:

>You have not supplied us with the name of a company or how much they get
>from this company, which I believe you should do if you make such claims.

Be reasonable. I don't have access to the Coeliac Society's books. But it
has now been about a week from when the Coeliac Society was first asked to
respond to my comment. They have chosen not to respond. I do not have any
material from the Society. If there is a long time UK member that has saved
all the food lists, etc, that they send out, could they look at the back of
them and see who they credit with funding their publication.

>This doesn't surprise me as your claim was harsh and may be unsupported by
>facts. Even if they did get some money from such a food company, it would
>not necessarily explain their acceptance of Codex wheat starch,

About 10 years ago, at an International Celiac conference, the UK Society
was asked by some other celiac groups to drop the wheat starch. At that
time there were no studies suggesting that it was safe. The Society's
argument for why they recommended it was they were concerned that if they
promoted a 100% GF diet that the Brits, with their high reliance on
sandwiches for lunch, would go off the diet completely. They felt that this
very small amount of gluten was much better than no GF diet at all. No
doubt this made sense at the time. Commercial 100% GF breads at the time,
especially the canned ones in the UK, where pretty unpalatable.

>>DON WISS' REPLY:
>>
>>I believe it is only the national support groups in the north. Not almost
>>all. Not Italy.
>
>MY 2nd REPLY:
>
>Actually, according to William Janssen: "The Codex Alimentarius
>provides the gluten-free standard for European food manufacturers." It
>covers all of Europe, including Italy as part of the EU.

The Codex Alimentarius, as quoted above, provides the gluten-free standard
for the manufacturers. It exists to guide them, not the societies. The UK
Society wrote to Jeff in London: "At present, the discussion continues and
individual countries set their own standard."

>Most, but not all support groups in Europe accept Codex wheat starch as
>safe for those with celiac disease.

You have several times made this "most" claim. I've never heard of national
celiac groups, beyond the UK, Ireland, some of the Scandinavian countries,
and possibly the Netherlands, as recommending this. If you are going to
keep making this claim, then the onus is on you to list the specific
national celiac societies that recommend this wheat starch to their
members. Also in the UK, they support a level of 200ppm, but some countries
support a level of 20ppm. When you make your list of countries, please note
whether they recommend 20ppm or 200ppm.

>>Study after study has
>>shown it to be safe for celiacs, including the following:
>>
>>>http://www.celiac.com/treat.html#wheat_starch

I find only one study at that link. Published in February 1999.

>Again, your belief that people's motives are 100% financially motivated is
>sad.

And you didn't set up the glutenfreemall to make money? Remember you wrote
to me in January 1999: "my business partner and I have invested a
considerable amount of money to create and advertise The Gluten-Free Mall
(TM), and we naturally hope that our business will succeed"

>One out of over 970 products on my www.GlutenFreeMall.com site
>contains Codex wheat starch, Odlums Bread Mix, and I sell the product
>because it is excellent, and has been shown to be safe for celiacs in study
>after study.

This was one of your first products after you opened the mall in January
1999. This was before the study noted above was published in February 1999.
But after the Canadian study showing distress. A summary of the Canadian
study was published on the front page of the Spring 1995 issue of the
Celiac News from the Canadian Celiac Association. I posted it to the list
in August 1995, and several times afterwards.

You state "study after study." How many is this?

I wrote:

>>I bet if I could make it through all the Flash at the UK site
>>I'd find something about very sensitive celiacs should avoid
>>wheat starch if it bothers them.
>
>MY 2nd REPLY:
>
>Please post any info you find on this I'd be happy to read it. Again, you
>imply something here and then don't back it up with any information.

It was posted to the list by Jeff in London. The UK Society wrote to him:
"There is scientific evidence available, that apart from ultra-sensitive
people, 200ppm gluten is safe. ... Here in the UK, the Coeliac Society
accepts that the majority of Coeliacs can safely tolerate 200ppm." Okay,
they have carved out the ultra-sensitive, and only make claims for the
majority (literally defined as more than 50%). That is what I wrote before.
Now how does one know one is ultra-sensitive? I guess by going by digestive
symptoms, but then not every celiac gets symptoms from eating gluten. In my
case I am very sensitive. When I get a slight contamination from the
company cafeteria I have flatulence in the afternoon and a BM sooner than
normal. For me this is unacceptable. Some others would live with this.
Going by symptoms is too nebulous for me.

Don.