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

>As both a chemist and an allergic type, I don't find it at all
>surprizing that people can be allergic to wheat but not allergic
>to spelt. ANY change in a protein or other substance, no matter how
>small, can make drastic changes in its effect. This is why it
>is reasonable to test a food in different forms when testing for
>allergy-- for example, you may react to the cooked food but not the
>raw or vice versa. I reacted to soy at one time when in the form of
>roasted soy beans or cooked soy beans, but not to tofu (processed
>from soybeans). Some people can drink raw milk but not pasteurized,
>for example.
>    Then there are people who tend to react to whole families of
>foods in all their forms (a reason why in the rotation diet, it
>is suggested that food families be rotated rather than just individual
>foods). Mysterious are the ways of the human body....
>              Peace, Cathy Flick  [log in to unmask]

I don't disagree with what Cathy says, but I don't think it is all that
pertinent to the wheat vs. spelt controversy.  If cooked spelt is OK, then
cooked wheat would very likely be OK as well. The differences (as indicated
by gel electrophoresis) in protein components among wheat varieties are as
large as the differences between wheat varieties and spelt varieties, which
is not unexpected because spelt does not belong to some other family--it is
essentially a variety of wheat.  I suppose one variety of, say, peanut might
be OK for a given person allergic to peanuts, while another might not, but I
am not aware of this. If there is evidence for varietal variations in
allergenicity I would be very much interested in hearing about it. It is not
impossible, as Cathy maintains, for spelt to be differentiated from wheat by
an allergic individual, but I still think it is highly unlikely.  As usual,
however, scientifically controlled testing would be necessary to go beyond
'I think.'

Don Kasarda