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

Labelling law; summary.

I didn't have too many responds. One person objects my statement:

/There is no substance in the nature, which in so little amount
cause so many health problems. Most of us on the list are agreement with
me./

I didn't expecting with everybody's agreement. The other person wrote me 
that I am "uneducated" man. He is right; I have no Dr. on front of my 
name, or PHD behind. He claims that only 0.75% is affected by gluten. I 
just don't know where that "educated" person came up with that number, 
when is no reliable test for gluten sensitivity, available. Present 
available tests can only confirm CD, but not rule out gluten 
sensitivity; as far as I know. Perhaps, I am wrong; however I would like 
to hear from those high educated people otherwise. When I read about 
those researches, where comparing "healthy" people with gluten 
sensitive; I am wandering what "reliable" test they use to sort them out.

It makes me wander, haw I can trust results of those researches based on 
unreliable tests. That is tough question; hopefully someone will give me 
and everybody ells rational explanation.

In conclusion, it seems to me that most of you are happy with the way 
labelling law is introduced.

 >

 >The labelling law is some success for people who have to avoid gluten

 >from their diet. Should be we happy? I am not satisfied with that law

 >for following reason.

 >

 >Most natural food products are not contains gluten; except few grains,

 >which would be easy avoided by us. However, fraction of those danger

 >grains are unnecessary added to most processed foods. They are mixed in

 >totally unexpected foods; like smoked ham, sausages, salami and many

 >more, even in raw turkey. That makes our problem to avoid accidently

 >expose to gluten virtually impossible; unless we are avoiding

 >restaurants and other gathering for meal. In my dictionary gluten is

 >poison. There is no substance in the nature, which in so little amount

 >cause so many health problems. Most of us on the list are agreement with

 >me.

 >

 >The labelling products as "gluten free" does not help us a lot. We would

 >be restricted on small amount of products labelling as "gluten free".

 >Many producers will avoid putting those labels on their products,

 >because of danger to be prosecuted. Perhaps their products are not

 >containing gluten but they are not labelling for above mentioned reason.

 >

 >The labelling should say "the product contains gluten". It just makes

 >sense. We do not read on any food product: "mercury free" or lead free,

 >because it is just obvious. It is also obvious, when I buying smoked

 >ham, or raw turkey not expecting gluten there. According to Dr. Alessio

 >Fasano everybody's health is affected; some less; some more. There are

 >many smart and influential people on this list who should continue

 >fighting, until gluten will be dark history in mankind.

 >

 >What do you think?

 >

 >Al from Toronto Canada


*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