28 September 2019 | New Scientist | 25K
HORASAN, teff, emmer
and amaranth. No, these
aren’t planets in the
next Star Wars movie, but some
of the growing range of wheat
alternatives that are increasingly
filling supermarket shelves (and
“wellness guru” Instagram feeds)
everywhere. Said to be untouched
by modern plant breeders, who
have apparently rendered wheat
an unhealthy option, these
“ancient grains” can supposedly
transform your health. But what
exactly are these foods, and are
they as beneficial as claimed?
Here’s the first thing: ancient
grains are often anything but.
Take quinoa. The seeds of this
South American plant are thought
to have been bred for human
consumption as recently as
3000 years ago, making it only
a third of the age of bread wheat.
Even some of the oldest members
of the wheat group, such as
einkorn and emmer which
were first bred 10,000 years ago,
only predate bread wheat by a
millennium or so.
In fact, many ancient grains
aren’t even true grains (the seeds
of grass plants), just a motley crew
of seeds from a range of plant
families and a few more unusual
rice and maize cultivars. With no
science behind this definition, it
seems to be employed as a catch-
all marketing term used to
describe anything that isn’t bread
wheat, regardless of its actual age,
how intensively it has been bred
or whether or not it is even a grain.
Semantics aside, are they more
nutritious? This seems to have
been investigated only very
recently. With most of the best
studies published in the past five
years or so, the health claims
appear to predate much of the
evidence. Studies examining
the nutritional composition of
ancestral wheats like emmer,einkorn and khorasan compared
with modern bread wheat tend
to have found a wide variation
between samples, which makes
comparing them tricky.
This isn’t only because there
is significant genetic diversity
within each of these species, but
also because factors like climate,
cultivation techniques and soil
can have a significant effect on
their nutritional content. For
example, wheat grown in Canada
can contain up to 10 times the
selenium levels of the exact same
variety grown in Europe, due to
differences in the levels of this
mineral in soils.For precisely this reason, a 2015
study set out to compare data only
from studies where the modern
and “ancient” species of wheat
were grown side-by-side in the
same fields. The researchers found
they varied very little in their
make-up. Ancient wheats tended
to be lower in fibre than modern
ones and were higher in a
phytonutrient called lutein, but
that is where the differences stop.
How about when more distantly
related crops under the ancient
grain umbrella, such as quinoa,
are compared with bread wheat?
Despite claims that these seeds
are “loaded with protein, iron,
and vitamin B2” on my quinoa
packet at home, the levels of thesenutrients in wholemeal flour are
comparable when you look at the
published nutritional data. The
boring old flour is also twice as
high in fibre and manganese,
despite a similar calorie count and
a lower cost. Sorry, clean-eaters!
It would be remiss of me to not
point out that there have also been
a few very small clinical trials set
up to answer this question. These
are potentially more exciting, as
they set out to feed people diets
based on the different grains and
compare the effects: the holy
grail in nutritional research. Sure
enough, these trials have reported
a plethora of health benefits,
including significantly reduced
cholesterol and lower markers of
inflammation to an improvement
in symptoms for people with
irritable bowel syndrome.
However, there are a few things
to note about these trials. Firstly,
they only compared two crops:
Kamut (a trademarked brand of
Khorasan grown in Canada under
licence) and bread wheat. So their
results can’t be extrapolated to
cover any other ancient grains.
Furthermore, despite being
otherwise well-designed, these
trials didn’t compare crops
grown side-by-side, but Canadian
Khorasan with wheat grown in
Italy. This means the findings
could potentially be attributed to
any number of other factors, not
just the crop itself. Why so many
trials on just this brand of
Khorasan? Most of these studies
also acknowledge support from
producers of the crop. Funny, that.
To me, this is a fascinating area.
But given how incredibly early
on we are in our understanding
of the potential differences here,
we are simply going to have to
wait before we get a clear answer
either way. In the meantime,
enjoy your grains, however
GE ancient they claim to be. ❚TT
Y^ IMAG
This column appears ES
monthly. Up next week:
Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
“ Ancient grains are
often anything but.
Many aren’t even
true grains”The truth about ‘ancient grains’ Wellness gurus are extolling
the virtues of so-called ancient grains. Are they really better for us?
James Wong investigates#FactsMatter
What I’m reading
Scientific papers on how
to grow moss. Despite
millennia of cultivation
in Japanese gardens,
there seems to be very
little research in this area.
What I’m watching
The documentary
series Kathy Burke’s All
Woman. I was chuffed
to learn that we were
born on the same council
estate. What a legend!
What I’m working on
Lots of things with the
Royal Horticultural
Society, as well as
formulating some
skincare products
for Liz Earle Beauty.
James’s week
James Wong is a botanist and
science writer, with a particular
interest in food crops,
conservation and the
environment. Trained at the
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, he
shares his tiny London flat with
more than 500 houseplants.
You can follow him on Twitter
and Instagram @botanygeek
Views Columnist