<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>
On Thu, 3 May 2001 00:07:15 -0400 Don Wiss <[log in to unmask]>
replied to my post on Codex Wheat Starch Safety as follows:
Scott Adams wrote:
>On Tue, 1 May 2001 21:04:52 -0400 Don Wiss posted a response to the
>following:
>
>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>And what is the Coeliac Society of the UK doing advising coeliacs that
>>it's OK to eat, if in fact research indicates it isn't? Or does other
>>research indicate something else?
>
>DON WISS REPLIED:
>
>My understanding is the Coeliac Society of the UK gets funding from the
>manufacturers of this proprietary wheat starch.
>
>MY COMMENTS:
>
>I have not seen any information that the Coeliac Society of the UK get
>"funding" from the manufacturers of Codex quality wheat starch, but I
>suppose it is possible.
>
>DON WISS' REPLY:
>
>At their web site you will find that they don't charge dues, but are
>entirely funded by donations.
MY 2nd REPLY:
As with most groups they probably get money from many places...probably
wherever they can. You said they get funding from companies that make
wheat starch products, and implied that this influences their decision.
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.
> The implication Don is making here, I believe, is
>that this funding somehow influences their acceptance of Codex wheat starch
>as safe for people with celiac disease, which I seriously doubt.
>
>DON WISS' REPLY:
>
>I received one private reply to my post. A UK fellow, that is not a UK
>Coeliac Society member, wrote to the society asking them to take legal
>action against me for my post to the list.
MY 2nd REPLY:
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, or
the general acceptance of it by many other European support groups and
scientists who do not receive such donations.
>Actually Codex wheat starch is considered safe by almost all national
>support groups in Europe regardless of where they get their funding.
>
>
>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. More info on it is at:
http://www.celiac.com/misc.html#Codex Most, but not all support groups
in Europe accept Codex wheat starch as safe for those with celiac
disease.
>Study after study has
>shown it to be safe for celiacs, including the following:
>
>>http://www.celiac.com/treat.html#wheat_starch
>
>DON WISS' REPLY:
>
>People should realize that Scott is not an impartial observer. At his >web
>site he sells a bread mix with this wheat starch. He stands to gain
>financially if this foodstuff is approved in the US.
MY 2nd REPLY:
Again, your belief that people's motives are 100% financially motivated
is sad. 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.
There is no "approval" for gluten-free standards in the U.S. like there
is in Europe, and the U.S. govenment doesn't have standards or test
American products for gluten content or contamination, as is done in
Europe with Codex wheat starch, so I'm not sure what "approval" you are
hoping I am trying to gain. I also don't appreciate your implying that
my motivation on this issue is money, and that I am not an "impartial
observer." I am someone who has looked at the evidence, eaten the
product many times, and believe it to be safe for celiacs.
>I am certain that the Coeliac Society of the UK and other major European
>support groups have based their acceptance of the product on scientific
>evidence,
>
>DON WISS' REPLY:
>
>They were recommending this wheat starch long before there were any
>studies. And as people have posted there are studies showing it is safe.
>Then there are studies, from other countries, that show it lowers the
>quality of life in some patients. 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.
>and not on where they might get a small portion of their funding.
>
>DON WISS' REPLY:
>
>Don't be so sure that it is small.
MY 2nd REPLY:
Again, unsupported claims to create fear of some hidden "Codex wheat
starch conspiracy!"
As you might be able to tell from my site www.Celiac.com, I read a lot
of information on celiac disease, including ALL of the past and current
studies. I base all of my positions with regard to what is safe for
celiacs on scientific evidence, never on money. I am confident that
people on this list can make up their own minds about the safety of
Codex wheat starch based on existing information. I also believe that
American support groups will continue their movement towards more
European standards (see: http://www.celiac.com/forbiden.
html#ADA_Guidelines), and that some may eventually include Codex wheat
starch on their safe lists. I would personally like to see a single,
international gluten-free standard at some point in the future, which I
think is possible.
Scott Adams
www.Celiac.com
|
