Both sides: Bread-lam

Bread causes cancer. That was the newspaper report that caused many to lose their breakfasts, in an instant. I can only imagine the spittoons of barely-chewed buttered toast, when this news interrupted our morning routine.

My mother pointed the article out to me. “This is what I’ve been telling you for ages. Stop eating bread,” she said. I dismissed it instantly, I seldom pay heed to medical research being touted by newspapers and news media to gain spectacular headlines, but curiosity made me research a little bit into this matter.

In 1987, H. Kasai et.al. published a study, where they observed a significant rise of 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine in the kidneys of mice that were orally administered Potassium Bromate. 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine is one of the major products of DNA oxidation, and Valavanidis et. al. pointed out that oxidative DNA damage, such as 8-oxo-dG, likely contributes to carcinogenesis. Now reading this, we’re to believe that the science is in, and Potassium Bromate (KBrO3) causes Cancer. This is quite shocking to say the least to the simple observer.

This discovery was made nearly 30 years ago, and we’re just made wise to a potentially life threatening chemical today? That seems like a pretty large blunder. If KBrO3 causes cancer, then why aren’t packets of bread labelled with the same warning as packets of cigarettes? How is it that our government was so unaware that a few headlines made the FSSAI ban it completely from all foods.

This article isn’t about KBrO3, rather it’s about sensationalism and about how we perceive science. The paper, which made our media and governments change their mind about bread overnight, is about ‘orally administered’ KBrO3 to mice. The WHO recognised this and even stated in 1986 that “there is no data available on the carcinogenicity of KBrO3 to humans”.

Now, before you go ahead and accuse me of being a lobbyist for the flour companies, I’d quote another study that H Kasai et.al., cited in another review paper they published in 1990, which stated that ‘Chemical analysis revealed that almost all the additive is converted to KBr during the normal British Baking process, the actual exposure was therefor negligible.’ So baking actually changes the chemical structure and makes it harmless.

There have been no studies that have shown a co-relation between human renal cancer and bread baked with KBrO3 so far. Does that mean it’s harmless? Does its impact on the kidneys of mice when orally ingested mean that it has no impact when humans consume it baked in flour? I don’t have the answers to any of these questions, and I’m always glad when my food has less chemicals in it. However, shouldn’t someone have presented both sides of this argument, especially since the WHO is still quite unclear about it, especially as it brands KBrO3 as possibly carcinogenic to humans?

We’re a nation of rash decisions. We banned Maggi because someone found lead in it, when the Singapore authorities, with better equipment, didn’t. Our decision-makers seem to ban things as soon as there’s a bit of clamour on the news. Then doesn’t it fall upon our media to be a bit more nuanced when it presents scientific studies? Does every small find have to be treated as a 9/11, and aren’t there other decisions apart from banning and not-banning?

We’re always on the hunt for sensational news that we have begun to treat scientific studies as page 3 news.

I recollect my days at University, when a professor of genetics once told me, ‘Science, and hence knowledge is like an ocean, as scientists we delve into it because we enjoy exploring the depths. Sometimes we get really excited and want to show the world what we discovered, so we try to hold on to a bit of the ocean’s water between our palms and bring it back to land to show it to everyone. However once when we open our hands, everyone is usually quite disappointed because all they can see is salty water.’