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

Scott Adam wrote:

>Again, the studies you have posted do not appear to deal with Codex
>Alimentarius wheat starch, which I thought was what this whole
>discusstion was about...no?

You are making the assumption that they don't. Why would they be doing the
studies with anything but Codex Alimentarius wheat starch? At the level
that was in the code at the time of the studies, and commercially available
to them from countries like the UK?

>There were earlier studies that were done which helped me make my decision,

But you have not yet been able to provide any citations.

>Don, please let me and the List know if you propose outlawing Codex wheat
>starch in the USA, and perhaps the rest of the world, or exactly what your
>position is on the issue,

Yes, it should be outlawed calling Codex wheat starch a "gluten-free"
product. If the societies in North America allow this wheat starch, when
those of us that want to avoid it go out to eat, we could end up eating
this when asking for a gluten-free meal. As New Zealand has done, this
product should only be call low gluten, differentiating it from a truly
gluten-free product.

>as I feel I have clearly expressed mine (namely that people ought to
>have freedom of choice, and good information to base their choices
>upon), but do not feel I understand your position.

You have been arguing that it is gluten-free, which is what your web site
claims Tritamyl Bread Mix is (though you do not now hide the fact that it
contains wheat starch). It is not an issue of choice, celiacs can eat
whatever they want, but of truthful labeling, so we can make a choice.

Don.