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

Hi David,
I am posting my response to the list, as I think this topic is an important
one. I am not trying to attack you; just your argument.

>I think that part of the difficulty I had on this subject was that I was
>unaware that any definitive research had shown this to be the case.

The incidence of malignancy is variously reported from 10% to 28% of
untreated celiacs. The malignancy rate among treated celiacs declines to
almost that of the general population by 5 years on a gluten-free diet. That
decline was not previously recorded because earlier investigations revealed
only a slight reduction in malignancy on the diet. That was in the UK when
wheat starch was accepted in the g-f diet. I have heard that there are still
many European celiacs who consume wheat starch, claiming that it does them
no harm.

>I agree that it would be foolish to "knowingly" ingest substances that would
>render one incapable of warding off cancer, but I find it hard to believe
>that if there is indeed proven studies of an increased risk of malignancy
>that Celiacs in the UK and Europe are not as concerned about cancer as we
>are.

I didn't suggest that we were more concerned about cancer, or even more
aware of it. I don't think we are. But I do think that when cd is diagnosed
in North America, it is usually at the more severe end of the spectrum, so
there are proportionately more celiacs saying that these traces result in
adverse reactions.
We have a more sensitive population of celiacs, I suspect, because the
milder cases are rarely diagnosed here.

>Since there are obviously some people who are affected by malt flavoring I
>am not implying that it is safe.  What I was wondering about was how
>thousands of people in other countries are able to use malt flavorings,
>apparently without ill effects.

Much of the medical profession, especially in North America, is woefully
lacking in suspicion of celiac disease, and without well controlled studies,
connections are rarely made between many of the "ill effects" and celiac
disease. Misinformation abounds. A medical technician recently told me about
her son who has celiac disease, and she is ensuring that he follows the
diet, because his teen-aged cousin can now eat gluten with impugnity, and
she wants the same for her son. When I tried to tell her it was a lifelong
illness, she told me that this was the information her doctor had given her.

I have engaged in several debates on sci.med, with professors of medicine who
say such foolish things as:
1. one doubted that there were as many as 25,000 celiacs in the U.S.
2. another one felt that a g-f diet for a person  with lymphoma would unduly
   reduce nutrition for a cancer patient
3. an oncologist who practices in my city, insisted that the g-f diet was
   just too unpalatable for a cancer patient, even though there was very good
   cause to suspect celiac disease.

>My only point was that perhaps we should consider having three categories
>for food guidelines.

Your three points open the door to increases in malignancy, neuropathies,
and autoimmune disease, none of which incite most practitioners to consider
celiac disease as the root cause, and the connection would most likely be
overlooked.

I will be happy to e-mail a list of references from peer-reviewed medical
journals on request.

Best Wishes,
Ron Hoggan   Calgary, Alberta, Canada