<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>> There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on whether European standard "gluten-free flours" that allow wheat starch should be considered safe, and whether there is any study that can conclusively give us a recommended maximum. I am not a physician, but have some background in statistics, and understand the various arguments of why certain studies cannot be considered 100% conclusive. It seems that most of the contributors to the list are somewhat in agreement with the reality that we should be able to consider corn and rice as safe, since there has never been any historical evidence of them being harmfull. It seems equally logical to me then, that we can conclude that there is a safe level of gluten which is NON-ZERO. We know this because every one of us every day is confronted with trace levels of gluten, yet we consider there to be some Celiac patients that are "tolerating". So the premise that there is NO SAFE level of gluten (even for an individual) is flawed as well. How then do we determine what is a tolerable level. Several contributors to the list have mentioned the difficulty in finding Celiacs willing to challenge themselves for the sake of a study. I would suggest that there exist natural, unintentional, studies, all around us, where celiacs have already chosen to, or are unintentionally challenging themselves. We only need to test these groups of individuals, starting with the least exposure, until we find a group that indicates an increased exhibition of symptoms or positive test results. I live in the Praries and as such I am exposed to wheat unintentionally every year at harvest time, simply by breathing the air. Wheat farmers would get an even higher dose. I am a diagnosed Celiac, but I choose to eat foods cooked on the same grills and in the same deep fryers etc... as gluten-containing foods, provided I remain asymptomatic. Whether we agree or not, Europeans have chosen to expose themselves to the flours containing wheat starch. There is a large diverse group of people. If they have chosen to be the guinea pigs, so be it. We can at least capitalize on that, as I am sure someone is doing, by testing them. Whether one agrees with the studies suggesting 14mg or 40mg, or neither, we do know the following: (a) For most, if not all Celiacs, there is some NON-ZERO level of gluten that IS "tolerable" (b) We do know that 10g (4 slices of bread daily) is enough to bring about symptoms in most Celiacs, as per #17 (c) For most, if not all Celiacs, you will occasionally be ingesting small amounts of gluten unintentionally (d) As one contributor wrote, 14mg would be found in 1/100th of a slice of regular bread So given this, it clearly isn't in the cards for Celiacs to intentionally consume any major source of gluten. It is of no consilation to me that I might be able to consume even as much as 5g per day, if that were to be the case. That would only mean 2 slices of bread, if the rest of the diet was gluten-free. As a Celiac, I find the hardest part of the diet is not in avoiding the obvious (breads and pastas), but rather all the hidden sources, and those would surely add to more than 5g in a normal diet. Even if there was a known maximum (eg. 14mg), not knowing how much gluten I am unintentionally ingesting, I would not know the allowable remainder. Perhaps I am already unintentionally exposed to 13mg. The only potentially useful decision that I am aware of that I could make, given a study of the European experience, might be to also utilize European-standard gluten-free flours. One would assume that they too are unintentionally exposed to glutens, so if European Celiacs show little to no increase in symptoms over a prolonged period of time utilizing their gluten-free flour, then that will be enough to convince me. It seems such study results (if even started) will not be available for years or even decades. So for the next 20 years or so, I will work off the premise that I need to try and stay 100% gluten-free, but will allow some MINOR cross-contamination.