I do take a bit of issue with #7. Assuming by ‘normal’ foods Heather means foods with gluten in them, there’s a real danger of cross-contamination in a kitchen that contains both glutenous and gluten-free foods. (One knife spread on the glutenous bread before going back into the jam jar can make a person sick. One piece of glutenous bread on the toaster oven can leave enough gluten to make a person sick. Etc.) In our kitchen, my husband can have self-contained glutenous/allergen-containing items that I can’t have, like regular beer (contained in cans or jars that don’t come into contact with anything I use). But if he had wheat flour or wheat bread or items like that, I’d be at too great a risk for cross-contamination. . . . Also, gluten intolerance and food allergies can be enormously isolating experiences for the person going through them. I think it’s important for families to show solidarity by being willing to eat by the standards of the one who’s going without, at least most of the time. I’ve heard from a variety of blog readers that it helps with an allergic child, especially, if that child’s siblings and parents take on the cause as well, at least when they’re at home, and it’s been a huge boon to me that my husband has embraced eating by my restrictions at home with me.

On a general note, I think it’s vital that, over time, we consider not only the cost to our pocketbooks of our groceries, but also the cost to the environment. There’s a variety of ways to do that, and some of them are cheaper than other options (like cooking from scratch). But some are pricier, initially. I think I maybe should just write a post about it instead of hijacking your comments , but sometimes a food that costs more initially is going to have greater societal benefits in the long run and may also be much better for our personal health, as well. Organic food and locally produced food (like the CSAs mentioned in the comments) are two examples.

Mary Frances, I’m looking forward to receiving this week’s menu plan!