THE STAFF OF DEATH - White Bread: A Social History of the Store Bought Loaf - page 49

ment in support of white bread. Other breads were fine foods, they argued, but white bread better suited
the economic crisis: white flour kept better than whole wheat, was cheaper to mill, and more efficient
to bake. Because fine flour used less of each kernel than whole wheat, it helped farmers by increasing
demand. Leftover bran could even be sold as animal feed, aiding another branch of agriculture. Couldn't
the USDA clear up, once and for all, the fuss about nutrition?
A. F. Woods, chief science officer at the USDA, agreed to a statement supporting bread in general,
which he wrote and distributed to nine of the nation's top nutrition experts for endorsement. H. C. Sher-
man, a leading expert at Columbia University, wrote back immediately. Something must be done to
moderate the influence of “cranks and food fakers,” he agreed, but “millers and bakers are now engaged
in a more active propaganda in favor of the white than is anyone in favor of the whole wheat.” Without
radical changes, he warned, the USDA statement would clearly “take the side of the white bread.” 63
The other eight experts signed without qualms. On this issue, the baking industry, the USDA, and
mainstream nutrition science were largely in accord. White bread critics' most convincing evidence,
they argued, had a fatal flaw: no one could deny that dogs, chickens, rats, railway workers, or sailors fed
only white bread for extended periods would sicken. But, as E. V. McCollum, discoverer of vitamins A,
B, and D, demanded on the pages of Everybody's Health that same year: who eats only white bread? 64
White bread is not a perfect food, he argued, but no food is perfect alone. The now-axiomatic mantra
that, in moderation, any food can be a healthy part of a balanced diet won the day for industrial white
bread.
H. C. Sherman eventually signed the USDA statement, convinced by his colleagues' gospel of mod-
eration. But, looking back, he was correct about the statement. It reads like most government dietary
advice today, presenting different sides so as to appear neutral, but in fact taking industry's side in subtle
ways. “White and whole wheat breads are both wholesome foods,” it declared. Whole wheat might be
better, but “no person subsists on one food. … The form [of bread] eaten may be left to the choice of the
individual when the remainder of the diet is constituted as to contribute the necessary minerals, vitamins,
and any necessary roughage.” 65 Both breads stood on equal footing as long as moderation and variety
were observed, the statement declared. But this ignored the fact that many poor Americans, subsisting
heavily on bread, didn't have the luxury of a diverse diet. Tellingly, one of the statement's industry-
friendly endorsers successfully suppressed parts of the document suggesting that people relying heavily
on white bread must take extra care to complement their staple with fruits and vegetables. 66
When the government statement went out in May 1930, bakers beamed. “Another triumph for white
bread,” the headline in Northwestern Miller proclaimed. And Henry Stude, president of the American
Bakers Association (ABA), wrote to the USDA's A. F. Woods thanking him for his work. The ABA, he
gushed, “has received innumerable clippings where this item has appeared and innumerable editorials
brought forth by this news item.” Indeed, the statement, reprinted in newspapers around the country, was
interpreted as a ringing endorsement of white bread. As a Kansas City Star headline declared, “Now we
can enjoy our white bread.” 67
The USDA statement didn't silence white bread's most ardent critics, but it did crystallize an emer-
ging commonsense view. As the 1930s progressed, the idea that white bread not only didn't cause dis-
ease, but could also be part of a good diet gained steady traction. Redeemed, white bread offered com-
fort in the dark years of the Depression. Amylophobia waned.
MODERATION'S DISCONTENTS
Mainstream policy makers, focused on the body's balance sheet of vitamins and minerals and leery of
challenging any sector of the food industry, liked the idea that every edible contributed something to