<<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