When we think of the controversy that has been raging in the media in recent years between ancient and modern grains, the «Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes» (argument between the ancients and the moderns) comes to mind, which was a controversy born in the Académie française that agitated the French literary and artistic environment of the end of the XNUMXth century.
The Ancients, led by Boileau, said that the ancient Greeks and Romans had reached artistic perfection once and for all and that, therefore, since it was not possible to do better, it was necessary to imitate them. The ˮModerns”, represented by Charles Perrault, affirmed that the classical authors were by no means insurmountable and that literary creation had to renew itself; they asked for a literature that was an interpreter of the contemporary era and that sought new artistic forms.
The two different theses could be applied in all those circumstances where opposing rivalries are compared, and in the case of grains the ancient ones vs the modern ones.
When we think of 'agriculture, we can think that it is the expression of a natural process? Nothing could be more wrong! In 9000 years (12.000-3.000 BC) man passed from hunter-gatherer to farmer and from this moment on in his history up to today it has been estimated that around 2.500 species have undergone the domestication process intended as modifications/selections of a wild species that lead to the creation of a new species that responds to man's needs.
So it is logical to think that agriculture is the most "unnatural" process there can be and this helps us better understand the work of Nazareno Strampelli (agronomist expert in plant genetics) than in the early 900s when the goal was to feed a growing population, was mainly aimed at identifying, through crossing and subsequent selection of progeny, new plant varieties that proved to be more productive for various reasons, including the size (height) of the variety, the moment earing and resistance to pathogenic fungi.
But which ones Are there any differences between “ancient” and “modern” grains? The so-called ancient varieties are wheats selected by researchers starting from the early 900s up to the 60s, while the modern varieties are those selected from the 60s onwards. Today we are witnessing a revival of ancient wheats which are attributed positive characteristics often in contrast with modern wheats. Modern wheats have less protein and therefore also less gluten than ancient wheats. And this in general because modern wheats have a higher productivity which results in a final product with less protein. An important difference between ancient and modern wheats lies in the quality of the gluten, which in modern ones has a greater strength and this is because those species have developed which, having a tenacious gluten, have made it possible to make softer breads and pastas that are always al dente as required by the consumers.
Just thanks to this gluten tenacity of modern grains, there are those who think that for this reason it is less digestible than the ancient ones and therefore hurt more and can contribute to increasing or even triggering celiac disease and gluten intolerances, consequently ancient grains contain less gluten and can be consumed by those who are intolerant without problems. As Laura Rossi, CREA researcher at the Food and Nutrition Research Center in Rome says, this is false and even dangerous because a celiac cannot eat ancient grains, however, these contain gluten and like all cereals that contain it, they must be excluded from the diet of those suffering from celiac disease.
With genetic improvement, obtained thanks to selection and genetic crossbreeding, wheat varieties have been obtained with more glutenins and fewer gliadins as it is the glutenins and not the gliadins that favor the tenacity of the dough. The reaction of celiac disease in the intestine does not occur against all gluten, but only its fragments, called "toxic epitopes", most present in gliadins. Since "ancient" wheat contains a higher ratio of gliadins to glutenins, there is therefore the possibility that "ancient" wheat does more harm than modern ones.
In support of this thesis, researchers from the Crea Cerealicoltura e Colture Industriali (Foggia branch), from the Universities of Modena and Reggio Emilia and Parma have also expressed their views, thanks to the research project "Ancient varieties of durum wheat and health: enhancement of the pasta chain, health claims and labeling in the internal and supranational regulatory framework” compared 9 ancient grains (widespread in southern Italy and the islands from the early 1900s to 1960) with 3 modern grains, both in terms of celiac disease and resistant starch content. The experimentation compared samples that were grown and collected at Crea under the same experimental field conditions, to then be ground and subsequently analyzed by the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and by that of Parma.
The conclusions of the study, published in the journal Food Research International, say that no celiac can take products deriving from wheat (rye, spelt, barley and oats) including ancient grains which are characterized by a greater protein component and release a greater quantity of peptides triggering celiac disease than modern ones. Furthermore, no substantial differences were found in the content of resistant starch after cooking the pasta, so there does not appear to be an additional potential prebiotic effect in ancient grains.
In Italy and in the world, the number of celiac disease diagnoses is constantly growing. Celiac disease is the most frequent food intolerance, it is estimated that in Italy its prevalence is around 1% and that the theoretical number of celiacs is 600.000, against the almost 200.000 diagnosed to date. In social media, the fake news is often reported that the prevalence of celiac disease and gluten sensitivity has been increasing in recent years, and the reason for this growth is the consumption of modern and refined grains. In reality, there is no scientific evidence to indicate that the number of cases of celiac disease is increasing and that, above all, there is a correlation between the consumption of a specific variety of grain, the use of pesticides used in agriculture and the type of cultivation land exploitation and the development of celiac disease.
The very existence of gluten sensitivity is still being researched and questioned by leading researchers in the field of celiac disease. Celiac disease seems to be objectively increasing and that it depends on a greater awareness and knowledge of the pathology on the part of the medical profession and on a greater availability of diagnostic tests increasingly sensitive and specific, and at the same time less invasive. So an ever increasing number of patients are being brought into the open who, up until a few years ago, would have remained undiagnosed.
According to researchers from the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the amount of gluten in wheat, according to epidemiological and clinical studies, does not influence the growth of diagnoses compared to the past. Secondly, we eat much less gluten than in the past: the amount of starchy products consumed has in fact decreased considerably due to the change in lifestyle. The type of starchy products consumed has also changed, given the current use of sifted flours (i.e. with very low fiber content due to the removal of the bran after milling) and the change in lifestyle has led to a change in various pathologies, not only autoimmune ones, including those related to nutrition. The improved living conditions have also, fortunately, increased life expectancy and drastically reduced deaths in childhood, especially when the presence of undiagnosed celiac disease can lead to death.
Another question that is often read on the net is: “Is eating gluten-free also good for those who are not celiac?” This question is the consequence of the great advertising pressure and the media hammering that is being observed in Italy and almost everywhere in the world, born of the extravagance of some VIPs and the false promise of losing weight by eating gluten-free foods, which has led to a large consumer demand for gluten-free products. In the USA in 2016 more than 15,5 billion dollars were spent on the retail sale of gluten-free foods and that in Italy, according to an analysis by Coldiretti, 320 million euros are spent a year on gluten-free products, registering a 20% increase in sales per year. Let's add that restaurants and other places of consumption that offer gluten-free recipes have risen over 58%. A change of habits that – continues Coldiretti – has also been recognized by the Istat basket which in 2015 sanctioned the entry of gluten-free pasta and biscuits for the calculation of inflation.
Obviously this behavior has no scientific basis and it is causing an inappropriate use of special foods, mainly on a self-prescriptive basis, without any diagnostic procedure to justify it. The gluten-free diet is essential for someone with celiac disease, but it shouldn't be followed without reason, as a result of a fad, as it is useless and potentially harmful in this case. It is not "lighter", it is not "slimming", indeed often gluten-free foods have a different nutritional composition compared to the corresponding ones for the general population. Self-prescribing a gluten-free diet also complicates the diagnosis of celiac disease.
La European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the meeting held in Prague in 2017, he presented the following statement: Choosing gluten-free foods in the absence of a diagnosis of celiac disease ascertained by specialized doctors is not advisable: it can increase the risk of obesity and cardiovascular diseases. A gluten-free diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies due to lower nutrient content in gluten-free foods, including dietary fiber, folate, iron, niacin, vitamin B1 and vitamin B2. Reduced consumption of whole grains, and therefore dietary fiber, has been linked to an increase in coronary artery disease.
There are those who argue that ancient grains are even better than modern ones: the aroma of the grain is more intense and gives rise to tastier and tastier products. Tale statement makes no sense if we consider that there are different species of wheat on the market: soft, durum, einkorn, spelled, spelled, T. turanicum and Tritordeum, etc. and that for each of them there are modern varieties and ancient varieties, it is therefore obvious that there is a diversity of flavors between the products obtained with the different flours. Without forgetting that a great role in defining the aromas and flavors of wheat-based products depends on the transformation process they have undergone. It remains clear that if the choice derives from a factor of taste, nothing prevents you from choosing the ancient one, with the awareness, however, that it is not a choice linked to health.
In conclusion, which grains are good to choose for our health? Whole ones regardless of whether they are ancient or modern. The true nutritional value of cereal-based products is the presence of dietary fiber which gives the product a whole series of nutritional properties that are important for health. Increases the sense of satiety, facilitates intestinal function, improves the composition of the intestinal bacterial flora, allows a better modulation of blood sugar and cholesterol levels because it reduces the absorption of sugar and cholesterol, is a protective factor against many forms of cancer involve the intestine.
