The Fresh Loaf

A Community of Amateur Bakers and Artisan Bread Enthusiasts.

King Arthur Flour and Enricnment

Petek's picture
Petek

King Arthur Flour and Enricnment

I noticed that some King Arthur flours (such as AP and Bread flour) are no longer enriched. By "enriched" I mean the addition of thiamine, niacin, riboflavin, folic acid and iron. I was under the impression that the FDA required flours such as these to be enriched. However, I found that was not the case. I asked KA why they no longer enriched these flours. Here's their reply:

Quote:

Thank you for your inquiry into why we stopped enriching our flour!

This practice of white flour enrichment began in the 1940s, during wartime, when food was being rationed and nutrients were scarce. The goal was to add back nutrients lost in processing, including iron and B vitamins. In 1943, the War Foods Administration issued an order which made enriched bread the temporary law of the land.

Much has changed since that time. White flour is no longer relied upon for B vitamins and iron, given changes in eating habits and the availability of nutrients in other foods and supplements.

With a mission that’s always centered on providing the purest, highest quality flour, we decided to remove the enrichments, allowing our Signature white flours to contain only the ingredients that contribute directly to their superior bakeability.

 

Other millers, such as Bob's Red Mill and General Mills, still enrich their flour.

BaniJP's picture
BaniJP

I have always been curious about enriched flours in USA, because here in Germany that is just not a thing. Okay, maybe some baked goods contain enriched flour and occasionally there is ascorbic acid in one of 50 flour packages, but that's about it.

Just googled it, it's allowed in EU, but apart from some Eastern countries nobody does it.

naturaleigh's picture
naturaleigh

Hi Petek!  I was curious about this because Bob's Red Mill is my fallback, so I hopped over to their site.  It looks like some of their 'conventional' flours are enriched (AP, artisan flour), but most of the whole wheat and organic flours are not.  Thanks for bringing this up, because I never thought to look.  I assumed no one was doing this any longer.  This is an aspect that could affect bakes I guess.  Good topic!

albacore's picture
albacore

All UK flour (except wholegrain) is still enriched. BTW, enrichment includes addition of calcium carbonate at the old school rate of 14oz per 280lbs of flour.

There was a fairly recent review of flour fortification in the UK with consultation and it was decided to keep its addition mandatory. One useful side effect of this is that there is always enough calcium for good breadmaking, otherwise in soft water areas it might be necessary to add some calcium to avoid "gummy crumb".

As an aside, the 280lbs of flour referred to above is the weight of a sack of flour back in the day - the kind of thing that bakers used to chuck over their shoulder many times a day!

Lance

idaveindy's picture
idaveindy

"As an aside, the 280lbs of flour referred to above is the weight of a sack of flour back in the day - the kind of thing that bakers used to chuck over their shoulder many times a day!"

Reference, please?

280 pounds is 20 stone. I could believe someone regularly lifting an imperial "cwt", hundredweight, centum weight, "quintal", of 8 stone, or 112 pounds.

Cwt is/was a standardized unit of measure for commerce.  "Quintal" is, or was recently, used as a commerce measure in South America.

"Back in the day", physical laborers were likely stronger than today.  And today, 50/55 pounds is the lifting "norm" so to speak.  

So, I can believe workers used to regularly lift twice as much as today.  But 5 times as much as today?  

idaveindy's picture
idaveindy

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_(unit)

In British usage, a sack of flour was equivalent to 20 stone, 280 pounds (127 kg) or one-eighth of a long ton. A sack of coal was 16 stone, or 224 pounds (102 kg), while the weight of a sack of wool depended on who was selling it. A sack of grower's wool was ​3 1⁄4 hundredweight or 364 pounds (165 kg), whereas a sack of dealer's wool was considerably lighter, at 240 pounds (109 kg).[11]

--

This "sack" was a "unit of trade," not necessarily a package/unit intended to be carried by a person.

albacore's picture
albacore

Dave, I can assure you that the 280lb sack was definitely a supplied physical unit, not just a unit of trade.

Here for instance is a question in Hansard, the UK parliamentary record from 1932:

"Flour Mills (Sacks, Weight)

09 June 1932
Volume 266

Mr. RHYS DAVIES
asked the Home Secretary what progress has been made under the safety-first scheme to reduce the weight of sacks in flour mills from 280 lbs. to 140 lbs.; and what proportion of flour is now being handled in the mills by means of the smaller sacks?


Sir H. SAMUEL
My information is that further progress has been made, and that the use of 280 lb. sacks has been practically abandoned throughout the country. There are exceptions at two or three mills, which, however, use 140 lb. sacks for 50 to 60 per cent. of their output, and only supply the larger sacks at the request of the buyers concerned. I am making inquiry into the special circumstances at those mills."

This suggests that the 1930s were probably the last days of the 280lb sack.

I can only find anecdotal evidence of handling 280lb sacks. There was a BBC program a few years ago called Victorian Bakers and I found this comment in a discussion on the Digital Spy forum:

"
    stargazer61 wrote: »
    They almost certainly would have had some form of trolley or barrow. Heavy goods like that have been moved on 'trolleys' for thousands of years. The only real lifting would be loading or unloading or carrying just a few feet.

Steve9214 wrote: »
No way.
Most bakehouses had a flour loft, and the bags would be carried up an external flight of stairs by the Miller's draymen.

The Bakers would then tip the bag of flour down a chute into the bakehouse, or down a chute that was positioned over the mixing bowl.

280lb was a "sack" of flour and a baker would have to lift it single handed.

I started working in bakeries when 32kg was the new standard bag size, 70lb or quarter of a sack. I was expected to carry one of those on each shoulder.

A trolley would be useless. "

I suspect that the likelyhood is that in the main the 280lb sack was carried by two people, but dragged and tipped (and sometimes carried) by one person.

Lance

idaveindy's picture
idaveindy

"not necessarily a package/unit intended to be carried by a person."

I agree it was a physical unit of trade and delivery, as were the sacks of coal, wood, and wool.

I disbelieve that men were expected to carry it one-man-carrying-one-280-pound sack.

Roll it off a wagon onto a trolley or wheel-barrow, yes.  Dragged and tipped, yes.  But -carried- by one, more than a few steps, no.  Two people, yes.

They also had block-and-tackle to get heavy objects up to higher levels.  I've seen pictures of those at stone mills.

Perhaps the bakers themselves petitioned/lobbied the regulators to specify smaller bags so they could get by with one assistant baker to lug the bags instead of two.

Tales of men carrying 280 pounds on a regular basis sound a bit too Paul Bunyon-esque.

 

albacore's picture
albacore

Paul Bunyon-esque or not, here is another comment on the practice. You can find it on page 81 of "The Modern Practical Bread Baker" by Robert Well p.1872.

 

Lance

MTloaf's picture
MTloaf

Yet this pernicious system is still carried on, more from want of thought...  A lot of that still going around in this day and age.

idaveindy's picture
idaveindy

I'm impressed with their strength and hardiness  in those olden times, as well as with your research skills!

280 pounds, ... holy-moley.

You made me change my opinion, Lance.  So, a salute/tip-o'-the-hat  to you!  I'll be more wary of you in the future. :-)

 

albacore's picture
albacore

Thanks for your comments Dave, but there's no need to be wary of me! We all bake together here, in spirit, if not in distance; there's no need for conflict.

Just take the time to evaluate each post or comment on its own merits.

 

Lance

tpassin's picture
tpassin

I remember reading (but where, I cannot recall) that back in the day in Canada, goods were transported to trading posts of the Hudson Bay Company on human backs for as long as a three-day journey cross-country.  The standard load was 80 pounds, plus the man's personal food gear. Some carriers who needed extra money would carry a double load.

TomP

Santefe1234's picture
Santefe1234

I am very glad to learn that King Arthur flour is no longer enriched!  I have an MTHFR deficiency - which means my body can process natural folate but not the man made chemical of folic acid.  Most people’s system can throw off the synthetic folic acid, but mine CANNOT.  Which means it stores up the folic acid and causes organ toxicity.  So, yes,  I am SO EXCITED to learn that King Arthur no longer enriches their flour!  Thank you, King Arthur Baking Company! 

 

whm1974's picture
whm1974

Never heard of MTHFR Deficiency. Can you explain this?

Alitafish's picture
Alitafish

I’ll answer! 
MTHFR is the abbreviation of an enzyme in the folate cycle that processes a reduced form of folate. The people with one of two genetic variants (mutations are genetic anomalies, variants are mutations that are successful enough to make it into a higher percentage of the population) in the MTHFR coding have reduced function of the enzyme when their body is stressed. The people who had this ability to shut down or reduce folate intake during the development of our species survived to pass on this gene while others did not. So it is likely that people that have one of these variants also have coding making them susceptible to overdose on folate. Since folic acid is a smaller mono-glutamate it is passively absorbed by the intestines into the blood stream. This is why it is said to have six times the DFE of natural folate. Natural folate (found in foliage) is a larger polyglutamate. There are biological mechanisms in the intestinal wall so that it is actively absorbed into the blood stream. Basically natural folate uses specially designed doors that your body can shut and folic acid busts through wherever like the kool-aid man. 
People with folic acid sensitivity can have symptoms similar to leaky gut and endometriosis.

Political complications:

In the US folic acid enrichment was mandated in wheat in 1998. It has since been added to rice and masa corn. There were several papers written by those in the FDA opposing the mandate until upper tolerances could be established. There have still been no studies. Instead the FDA was politically pressured to produce an education campaign stating that folate and folic acid were chemically the same (they’re not), biologically the same (they are not), perfectly safe (even though the entire rest of the publication is warning of the lack of data supporting that claim). The attempt to synonymize(new word!) folate and folic acid was not adopted by other countries, such as Costa Rica. Considering this political stance it is no surprise that the FDA does not require folic acid to be reported on the label. Luckily many in the industry have or will put it on the label. Jello put “modified” on their pudding labels when I asked. General Mills gave me a two month run-around on Cascadian Farms cereal then stopped responding. Ling Ling potstickers gave similar reasons to King Arthur for going enrichment free.

If anybody knows any more I’d love to add them to my list!

Carnation4000's picture
Carnation4000

Alitafish - thank you so very much for such an informative answer!!  So many people are not aware that they too probably have an MTHFR mutation.  Let's say you take a multivitamin in the morning followed by some bread product.  Then for lunch, maybe you have a sandwich.  For dinner, maybe you have some form of pasta.  By the end of the day, you have probably overloaded your body with Folic Acid it cannot easily absorb. 

The dangers of Folic Acid are real but not enough folks know about it.  The FDA just keeps mandating that it be added to more of our food.  Enough!!!

I truly appreciate companies like King Arthur that have made the decision to stop the Folic Acid madness!!

Santefe1234's picture
Santefe1234

MTHFR means: methylene tetra hydro folate reductase.  If you have a deficiency in this, it means that your body only  has a 30% ability to convert (or methylate) B-12, B6 & Folate into usable forms - while everyone else has 100% ability to convert these vitamins.  A lack of these vitamins can lead to some rather serious health issues.    B-12 is broken down (methylated) into methylcobalamine which is the usable form your body can then use.  Folate must be broken down (methylated) into L-Methylfolate in order for your body to use it.  Someone who has an MTHFR deficiency cannot methylate these vitamins and are therefore deficient in B-12 & Folate even though they have plenty of B-12/Folate running around in their bloodstream!  However, a routine blood test shows that you have plenty of each in your blood sample  - so your doctor then thinks you’re doing “A-Ok” - when you aren’t!   The only 2 ways to know you have this is to ask your doctor to run 2 blood tests: a Methylmalonic Acid test AND a Homocysteine test.  If you have an MTHFR deficiency?  BOTH levels will be elevated at the same time above normal limits - but won’t be elevated in the same amounts.  The other way to discover if you have this deficiency is through “23 & Me” genealogy & health test.  Your DNA will flag that you have an MTHFR deficiency.  I did both to be sure and both tests showed an MTHFR deficiency.  Folic acid is the man made form of Folate and it has to be broken down (or methylated) twice in order to get it into the L-Methylfolate that your body needs.  In folks with an MTHFR deficiency, not only can their body NOT break down the folic acid -  it can’t get rid of it either - so it stores the folic acid up!  This can become toxic to their system.  This is a genetic deficiency and it runs strongly in families that have it - all of my siblings have it as do many of my first cousins as well.  Sadly, family doctors DO NOT check for an MTHFR Deficiency nor do they know how to treat it.  An Endocrinologist is needed for treatment of an MTHFR deficiency - as it can lead to other health issues if left untreated. However, your family doctor CAN run the two blood tests mentioned above.  I am a retired R.N. and the only time a doctor will order the two mentioned blood tests is if you have had a stroke or a heart attack.  THEN they look for an MTHFR deficiency!    Folic Acid is added into cereals (read the cereal box labels) into loaves of bread and into pasta & flour.  This was done to prevent the birth defect called Spina Bifida - which is caused by a lack of Folate/Folic Acid in the mother’s diet while pregnant.  It was a HUGE success - when was the last time you heard of a baby being born with Spina Bifida?  Unfortunately, there are still rare cases of it - but nothing like it was in the 60’s.  Look for the term “fortified” - and then read the label.  Plain old Corn Flakes has the highest Folic Acid content - and it is a “No-No” food for those with an MTHFR deficiency which makes me sad because I LIKE Cornflakes.  We have to buy organic flour, organic oats, etc., to keep from ingesting the man made folic acid that we can’t use nor get rid of.  This is why I have HERALDED King Arthur flour!  Because they stopped adding the Folic Acid to their all-purpose flour?  I no longer have to pay Boo-Coo-Bucks for a 5lb bag of Organic flour!  And?  Since King Arthur Flour is an employee owned company?  The employees work hard to produce a great product - and I get to help their stocks increase by purchasing their Folic Acid Free flour - which is what I have to have!  It’s a “Win-Win” in my book!