[gfp]

mrparker, on Aug 23 2006, 03:31 PM, said:

I don't doubt that some Celiac patients do get sick after drinking Vodka. The relevant question, though, is why do they get sick? Of the thousands of components you cite, maybe one (or more!) of them is the culprit, and it does not have to contain gluten. My Celiac son reacts to dairy, but he is not allergic and it does not contain gluten. Maybe something similar is going on with vodka and other distilled spirits.

Mathematical models are not a substitute for empirical evidence, which in this case would be actually testing the result of the distillation to see if it contained gluten. Have you done this, or can you point to others that have?

One of my in-laws cannot drink tequila, as it makes him sick. Scotch is not a problem, though, and he doesn't have a problem with gluten. But clearly something in tequila makes him ill, but it doesn't have to be gluten-related.

I agree entirely....indeed it is even more complex? Is it gluten or is it (more likely) small amino acid chains of gliadin.
Testing wise... it makes a huge difference. For instance testing by GCMS would be completely different if looking for whole gluten or gliadin chains. Not not would timing be completely different but a different GC column entirely.

Quote

Mathematical models are not a substitute for empirical evidence, which in this case would be actually testing the result of the distillation to see if it contained gluten. Have you done this, or can you point to others that have?

Nope but I have done this with petroleum distillates .... again and again and again .. but there is a lot more money in distilling kerosene as jet fuel than vodka to be gluten (and derivatives) free.

jp54 (commercial grade jet fuel) sells for more than the price of M100 (heating oil) and is in constant demand
The prices vary regionally but there is usually a $5/bbl spread between the two.

U.S. airlines require about 1.27 million barrels of jet fuel per day (At 42 gallons per barrel, this translates to 19.5 billion gallons per year.) The average cost of a gallon of jet fuel has more than doubled, from 75 cents per gallon in 2001 to $2.01 in the first seven months of 2006. At current rates of consumption, every penny increase in the price of a gallon of jet fuel results in an additional $195 million in annual operating expenses for the industry. In 2005, U.S. passenger and cargo airlines consumed more than 19.9 billion gallons of jet fuel, costing more than $33 billion.

Quote

The difference between crude oil and jet fuel prices, commonly known as the "crack spread," historically averaged about $5 per barrel. In the weeks following hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, however, the crack spread widened dramatically when major oil supply disruptions prompted refiners to focus their operations on producing gasoline. As a result, airline demand for fuel far exceeded the available supply, causing the spot price of jet fuel to spike at more than double the spot price of oil. At its peak, the crack spread added the equivalent of $60 per barrel to the final cost of jet fuel, which surged to $131.47 in the Gulf Coast on October 5, 2005. For the first seven months of 2006, the crack spread averaged $16.49 per barrel.

Just as motorists pay different prices for gasoline in different parts of the country, airlines pay different prices regionally for jet fuel. West Coast prices traditionally run higher, because of limited refining capacity as well as inferior storage, logistics and distribution capabilities. In addition to the mountainous terrain, which limits trucking capability, the West Coast lacks the more robust pipeline network of the East, although the latter is becoming increasingly strained by today’s demand and competing product needs (i.e., gasoline vs. diesel vs. jet). Much of the product on the West Coast is imported, often from countries with even higher prices.

There is obviously a huge incentive to be able to fill demand with premium product!

The chemical differences are trivial, except of course jet fuel doesn't freeze at -40 !

[floridanative]

Unless Smuckers just changed their tune, they do not know if any of their products are gluten free. They told me so 5 months ago and again last week. I depise them for their disinterest in knowing what's in their products. They say they are working on it but why buy something from a company that can't tell you 5 months if their stuff is gluten free. Down with Smuckers big time!

[psawyer]

Smuckers will not call any product "gluten free" at this time due to the remote possibility that there could be unknown cross contamination in something they got from an outside supplier (i.e., beyond their control). Meanwhile, as they keep their @$$ firmly covered, they will not hide gluten in vague ingredients like "natural flavor" and the like. Any known gluten source will be clearly disclosed.

Here's a link to a post which describes their CYA statement.

I don't think that this shows a "disinterest," and I certainly don't think it warrants a boycott of their products. If we want to boycott something, let's boycott tort lawyers!

[gfp]

floridanative, on Aug 24 2006, 12:08 AM, said:

Unless Smuckers just changed their tune, they do not know if any of their products are gluten free. They told me so 5 months ago and again last week. I depise them for their disinterest in knowing what's in their products. They say they are working on it but why buy something from a company that can't tell you 5 months if their stuff is gluten free. Down with Smuckers big time!

5 months isn't so long... when they have suppliers and the suppliers have suppliers etc.

During a recent "worcester sauce affair" in the UK they found some carcinogen in part of it and this was if I remember down to some factory in Africa somewhere that made a particualr coloring.

However from this point forwards they then had to go to all the foods that had contained this batch of worcester sauce (I obviously didn't need to check because its a non gluten-free one) ... it was hundreds and hundreds of foods .. supermarket own brands and all sorts and this was classed as an emergency... and still took weeks.

and this still doesn't even touch other foods that had the same flavoring component...

If they phone a supplier and say, hey we have a restricted carcinogen in our product I expect they act a lot quicker than a general query is your product gluten-free so when this has to go through a few chains 5 months really isn't that much and I bet most of the suppliers answer is "how would we know." we need to ask our supplier...