I recently left a comment on a “real food” blog expressing something I’ve expressed elsewhere before…and got a similar response to what I’ve received before.  My comment indicated that, while I definitely agree that fermented/soaked grains were a normal part of traditional cultures, I don’t believe that unfermented/soaked grains were not.

The response was, essentially, “prove it.”  (I don’t mean to imply that the writer was short with me, at all.  She was quite gracious and not so snippy as to actually use the phrase “prove it”!  That’s just the underlying gist.)  As I was putting together my response, it occurred to me that my readers might be interested, too.

Flat Breads are Traditional

To be honest, I find it a bit baffling that there’s any question of quick breads having been around for a while.  Name nearly any culture, and we could list at least one flat bread inherent to that culture’s traditional cuisine.  Tortillas, fry bread, and naan are the first few examples that pop into my head.  Do we have any proof that all of these flat breads used to be fermented, other than that Sally Fallon said so?

(Side note: Nearly everything in Nourishing Traditions is extremely well documented. The claim that traditional cultures ate only fermented or soaked grains is an exception; it has exactly one reference which, as best I can tell, proves that most traditional cultures had soaked/fermented grains, but not that they did not have unfermented grains.)

The whole benefit of a flat bread (usually) as compared to a risen bread is that it doesn’t have to rise!

There are other quick breads — like Irish soda bread — that also don’t require soaking, but which may be newer.  My blog friend says that baking soda wasn’t readily available until the late 18th century, and I don’t have any reason to disbelieve this.  A quick Google search produces some evidence, though, that the concept of quick-rising leavening agents was not new then.

Historical Documentation of Unleavened Bread

I do have one readily-available source, though, of historical evidence that unleavened bread is not new.  The Old Testament provides evidence of unleavened breads in somewhat regular use (not in exclusion to leavened breads, but clearly common).  Not everyone accepts the Bible as a viable religious text, obviously, but most historians consider it a reliable historical text.

Passover

Passover is the most obvious biblical example of unleavened bread. Unleavened bread was to be eaten for 7 days. All leaven was to be completely removed from the home. Jewish religious tradition says that matzoh is not acceptable for Passover unless water and flour have been in contact for less than 18 minutes so there is no possibility of wild yeasts accidentally leavening the bread a little.

The Rest of the Year

Passover is not the only time unleavened bread was eaten, though. (This flat bread wasn’t a once-a-year thing.)  Consider the following examples:

• In Genesis 19, Lot served the angels unleavened bread.
• This is right after they’ve left Abraham, where he served them what seems to have been unleavened bread.   See Genesis 18:6: “Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes.” This bread was prepared quickly from ground grain — not from porridge or slurry or pre-existing dough, etc.
• When Aaron and his sons were consecrated, both leavened and unleavened breads were part of the ceremony. (Ex. 29:1-2) On this particular occasion, they seem to have ceremonially burned them, rather than eaten them, but their inclusion still suggests that both types of bread were quite familiar to the people.
• A number of other offerings were specifically to consist of or include unleavened bread: a baked grain offering (Lev. 2:4-10; 6:14-18), a peace offering (Lev. 7:11-13), an offering as part of the ceremony consecrating a Nazirite (Num. 6:13-17). Not only does this indicate that both leavened and unleavened bread were familiar to the people; the offerings were designated as the priests’ food. At the very least, the priests ate unleavened bread on a regular basis.  God demanded the best for His offerings, so I doubt this is an example of the priests getting the dregs while all the rest of the people ate “real” food. (By contrast, the offering at Firstfruits was specifically to be leavened – Lev. 23:17 – so we cannot conclude that God was simply opposed to leaven in any of His sacrifices.)
• Gideon served unleavened bread to an angel. (Judges 6:19-21) The angel did not eat it but, again, it points to unleavened bread as “normal.”
• The medium served King Saul unleavened bread — something she clearly believed to be nourishing food. (1 Sam. 28: 20-25)
• 2 Kings 23:9 and 1 Chronicles 23:29 also reference unleavened bread.

It seems clear that both leavened bread and unleavened bread were normal for the ancient Hebrews, with unleavened bread being considered nourishing food that was of acceptable caliber even for priests, kings, and angels. I highly doubt the ancient Hebrews were unique in this regard.

So Why the Bad Rap, and Is It Accurate?

The claim is that we need to eliminate the phytic acid entirely from our breads because we assume, as a result of its ability to bind iron and other minerals, that phytic acid is completely bad, and therefore to be avoided at all costs.

It is, however, this very ability of phytic acid to bind to iron which has been shown in some studies to have a protective effect against the cancer that red meat-eaters are supposedly prone to!  We know that phytic acid (and similar elements) are present in grains and certain other foods.

We know that certain forms of preparation reduce or eliminate them.  But we assume that eliminating them as thoroughly as possible, every time, is desirable.

My Conclusion

My personal suspicion is that it’s a good thing to eat grain in both forms — fermented/soaked and unfermented/unsoaked, so that we are getting different sets of nutrients. (If we didn’t eat anything containing those things villainized as “anti-nutrients” there’s an awfully long list of healthy whole foods we’d have to eliminate!)

Most of us don’t err on the side of too much fermented food, so I think it’s safe to say that most of us could benefit from eating more fermented foods!  I just also think we have to be careful not to impose overly-stringent dietary guidelines based on one person’s teachings.

*And contrary to popular belief, Weston Price’s work is not the reference for this.  Nutrition and Physical Degeneration doesn’t say anything about the proper way to prepare bread.