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

Watching the most recent round of polemic regarding CSA and the
designation of certain grains as "safe" or "unsafe" has been
interesting, and I would like to add my thoughts.

While I have not seen the brochure that stimulated this discussion, it
sounds as though it provides a fairly broad list of foods to avoid.  As
a paralegal, I understand all too well why CSA would want to err on the
side of caution, but I do agree they should avoid overgeneralizing in
categorizing foods as "unsafe."

I think this discussion has shown fairly conclusively that no single
list can be right for everyone.  The best CSA can be expected to do is
provide general information that will assist people, especially those
who are unfamiliar with CD, to determine what is right for them.  To
that end, it seems it might be helpful for CSA to categorize foods
according to certain criteria.  For instance, items that definitely
contain gluten, items that may contain gluten due to cross-contamination
at some level, items that do not themselves contain gluten but are
reported to trigger gluten-like reactions in some celiacs, etc.

Of course, these categories would be difficult to quantify, and there
would always be items that "cross over" for some of us.  This should be
recognized in connection with such a list, as should the information
that celiac can sometimes be asymptomatic. Further, if we provide
feedback on the list to CSA (and CSA collects it in a meaningful
manner), the list could be revised from time to time as certain trends
make themselves evident.  For instance, if a particular grain that
always had been considered "safe" suddenly started causing reactions
(perhaps due to a change in processing, fertilizing, etc.), its status
on the list could be changed and an explanation for the change provided
at the time.

This would be a lot of work, but a less "hard line" stance with regard
to some foods could ultimately assist people in reconciling the
different messages they get from the different organizations and people,
especially if supplemental information regarding the reasons some items
are questionable is readily available.  Further, this approach may serve
to alert some companies to problems with their manufacturing or handling
processes, and some that have products that might otherwise be
considered "safe" may just decide it's worth addressing for that little
bit of extra market share.

Every time you eat something that is "questionable," whether it be
something like quinoa or a processed food containing the ubiquitous
"modified food starch," you are taking a chance.  In fact, every time
you eat something that you did not prepare with your own hands, you are
taking a chance that it somehow has been contaminated.  If you have the
information that a food is "questionable" and that celiac may be
asymptomatic in some instances, it becomes your call.  Is it worth the
risk?  Only you can make that determination.  My attitude is that I can
eat anything I want to eat -- as long as I'm willing to deal with the
potential consequences.  Whenever I am tempted, I think about it in
those terms and usually decide it's not worth it.  It keeps me in
control of my diet and not the other way around.

Sorry to be so long-winded -- it comes from hanging around too many
lawyers, I guess!  I just hope some of you are still awake after all
that... ;)

Shawn Anderson
Juneau, Alaska