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

I guess what I had wanted to throw out for discussion, when I first
mentioned the peanut people, is do we want to go down the same
path? While I am still envious of their current clout, I wonder
if companies are stamping "may contain peanuts" on everything
just to cover their hynies.

I personally don't think that the peanut outcome, at least the
current outcome, is a desirable one. If we frighten companies,
they'll just stamp "may contain gluten" on everything from
chicken legs to aluminum foil and then we are right back where
we started ...

On the other hand, if we say nothing, and maple syrup,
seltzer and chicken legs  *really* do have gluten but it
isn't labelled, then there's a diagnosis derailment. I know
that my glutenous seltzer delayed my diagnosis by at
least a month.

It does seem like the food allergic people need to unite -- that's
the only way [in my peabrain]  we'll ever drub into these companies'
heads the importance of truth in labels.

re: compounding. Thanks to all -- nearly everyone suggested
Stokes. I was finally able to speak with a pharmacist, who
was wonderful and the Alka Seltzer cold plus arrived in 3 days.
No more honk, snort, snuff.

The anti-convulsant remains a holy grail. The company does
not guarantee GFness ["we do try to use corn starch but
from time to time when all the corn in the world has evaporated,
we use wheat, please call every 6 days, blahblahblah"] ... but
they also will NOT release the powder to a compounder.
Unless I'm a dog. woof. [the company will release for compounding
for *veterinary* usage only.]

So it appears my neuro and/or stokes will have to file a
Patient IND with the FDA to force the company to release
the powder to Stokes. I've also been told that  a compassionate
use appeal to the FDA  might be addressed more quickly,
but the FDA guidelines for compassionate use are pretty
strict and I'd have to be dying of something to get quick
compassionate usage approval.

I'm not a lawsuit-happy person, but the hornery part of me
wants to sue the powder-hogging pharmaceutical company
for violation of the ADA. Its a stretch, but the IND process
will take at least a year .... argh.

Thankfully, the pharmacist at Stokes was *very* committed to going
through this process, which was  a welcome relief.

Again, thanks for everyone's suggestions. And, thanks
for the rant space.

Tracey in Connecticut   GF lodging:  http://www.innseekers.com/feature.htm