BROWN OR WHITE.
For half a century, says Dr Ashburton Thompson, President of the New South Wales Board of Health, the question has been debated as to which is the better class of bread to eat, brown or white, and the quarrel till goes on, with no sign of coming to an end. The matter has once again been brought prominently before us by the recent discussion at the Bakers' Convention in Brisbane. A paper on "Whole Meal versus White Bread," by Mr F. B. Guthrie, of New South Wales, was read at the convention, and in his paper Mr Guthrie pointed out (hat the white loaf was subject to periodical attacks by faddists, who warned humanity that it was slowly poisoning itself. Reformers maintained that the whole wheat berry should be consumed —that nature had fashioned it for such a purpose, and that it would be next to blasphemy to reject any part of it. Mr Guthrie, however, was not greatly greatly impressed by this view, being rather inclined to think that nature had fash'oned the grain so that its kind might be reproduced. As a matter of fact, he said, bran was rejected by the miller because it consisted of a hard and indigestible protective layer of cellulose, and he added that if nature had intended man to eat this part of the grain she had neglected to provide him with the necessiary machinery to assimilate it. With regard to digestibility, in the case of normal persons, when bread from fine flour was eaten, 954- per cent of its weight was assimilated, whereas in the case of whole-meal bread only 86 per cent of its weight was absorbed. In the discussion which followed, the opinion was generally expressed that white bread was the more nutritious though it paid the baker better to supply the brown article. "Theoretically," said Dr Ashburton Thompson, when asked if he could settle this vexed question, "brown bread is better, but in practice, that is, having regard to their digestive organs, white is the better. The squabbling has been going on for over 50 years, and it's likely to go on, whatever one may think or say about it. It's like a sectarian war. Chemically there is more nutrition in brown bread; actually there is not, because it is not so easiy digested as white bread. We have to consider the physiological point of view. Brown bread again, is more sodden than white, because there is more water in it." Generally speaking, Dr Thompson agreed with the views put forward by Mr Guthrie. There were many things he would like to have settled, once and for all, he said, but unfortunately w» were obliged to do without it.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/KCC19110826.2.19
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 390, 26 August 1911, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
454BROWN OR WHITE. King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 390, 26 August 1911, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Waitomo Investments is the copyright owner for the King Country Chronicle. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Waitomo Investments. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.