Sensitive to corn?

[Pat]

Here is a good website of what to avoid:

http://www.cornallergens.com/list/corn- ... n-list.php

Pat

[MBombardier]

Thanks, Pat... I have tentatively decided that corn is an intolerance of mine. Judging by the number of foods on this list, it's time to stop eating at all. Just kidding... maybe.

[tex]

I always found that corn was the most difficult ingredient for me to avoid, by far, because it truly is in virtually everything, in one form or another, including many/most vitamin supplements. Most foods seem to contain either corn-based food starch, ascorbic acid, dextrin/dextrose, corn syrup, or HFCS, and if they don't contain one of those, they manage to include some more obscure derivative of corn. And, of course, if they can't find a reason to put a corn derivative in the product, they'll add a soy derivative, just to make sure that many of us can't use it.

Incidentally, most of us have been taught that in the U. S., the single word "starch", on an ingredient list, always means cornstarch, unless the label states otherwise, with additional details. And this is true, for FDA-regulated products. Please be aware, however, that the FDA does not regulate all foods in this country - the USDA regulates meat products, dairy products, and eggs, and their labeling requirements do not follow the same guidelines as the FDA. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, (FALCPA), which went into effect on January 1, 2006, did not apply to USDA regulations - it only applies to FDA regulations. (This is just another example of the incompetent performance of our legislators in this issue). Therefore, you cannot always rely on the word "starch" on a label of one of these foods, to mean that the source of the starch is corn. Legally, it can also be wheat. These days, many manufacturers try to also follow FDA conventions on their USDA labeling, but you can't always count on it. When in doubt - ask the manufacturer. Here's a pretty good, down-to-earth, explanation of this possible issue:

http://www.glutenfreedietitian.com/news ... ted-foods/

Tex


Tex

[sarkin]

Tex,

Speaking of starch, I was wondering what the sodium starch glycolate in that 'inactive' ingredients you listed for Asacol HD is derived from. I'd guess it isn't necessarily the same source each time, even - presumably the pharma company buys it from a supplier for the best price they can get, and that might not always be the same supplier. (I'm guessing - but ai ai ai anyway.)

I'm having people over for a little 22nd birthday cake & champagne tonight. Of course I won't be having cake *or* champagne. Someone offered to find a gluten-free cake, but rather than go into the long list of other ingredients I don't eat, I suggested the birthday gal should have her very favorite. The idea of someone sweetly going on a quest to find a packaged product that no one else would enjoy either didn't seem quite in the spirit of the day ;)

Sara

[tex]

Sara,

From a practical standpoint, corn starch is virtually always the cheapest source of starch in this country, but you're right, of course, that sodium starch glycolate can be made from any source of starch. And, of course, since many pharmaceuticals are made in countries that do not necessarily grow corn, I'm guessing that cornstarch might not be the most economical choice in some of those countries. What cooks our goose, of course, is the fact that our legislature, (in it's infinite wisdom), chose to specifically exempt the pharmaceutical industry from having to comply with the FALCPA regulations, so pharmaceutical labels do not have to disclose the source of starch.

Good work - I got so caught up on the other problems with Asacol HD, that I didn't even look at that one.

Tex

[sarkin]

Tex,

I'm still new to this game, but the word 'starch' has me pretty twitchy these days ;) Still, after 'phthalate' it almost sounds reasonable - at least some folks put starch in their bodies on purpose.

Is part of the idea just to make the pill bigger? I understand the need for a coating, but am not entirely clear why filler is needed. From my experience with Asacol, it's not a trivial amount of lactose in there, either. Not to mention the sand!

Sara

[tex]

The filler is usually used simply to make the manufacturing process simpler. IOW, the amount of active ingredient is so low in some pills, that dosing is much more accurate if it is mixed with a filler, to give a more practical volume of material to work with. It also serves to eliminate a bunch of empty space in capsules, or allows the tablets to be larger, so that they're easier to handle, (and in a society with a prevailing "supersize me" mentality, it gives the appearance of providing more for your money).

Also, many "inert" ingredients are sweeteners, to improve the taste of otherwise bitter-tasting active ingredients. I'm pretty sure that's why lactose is so popular as a filler, and many pills contain sorbitol, which many of us, (including myself), react to, in significant quantities. Since they didn't "lose" the lactose when formulating Asacol HD, I'm guessing that Asacol would taste like you-know-what, without the lactose, but I could be wrong, of course. Maybe the members of the company board of directors are heavily invested in milk futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Tex