Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:01:36.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Studies on the composition of food

4.* Comparison of the nutrient content of retail white bread made conventionally and by the Chorleywood Bread Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. A. Knight
Affiliation:
Flour Milling and Baking Research Association, Chorleywood, Herts.
A. A. Christie
Affiliation:
Department of Trade and Industry, Laboratory of the Government Chemist, London SE1
C. R. Orton
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London SW 1
Jean Robertson
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London SW 1
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Loaves of conventional white bread and of bread made by the Chorleywood Bread Process (CBP) were bought from bakers’shops in Britain over a 10-month period and were bulked to give samples representative of each type of bread produced for consumption in the country as a whole. These were analysed for moisture, protein and amino acids, fats and fatty acids, carbohydrate (by difference), sodium, potassium, iron, thiamin, riboflavin, total and available nicotinic acid, vitamin B6, and free folic acid.

2. There were no great differences between the nutrient contents of the two types of bread. The mean moisture contents differed by only 5 g/kg but a variation was found between some selected nutrients in paired loaves of the same type. CBP bread could not be distinguished from conventional bread in its content of fat, ash, calcium, sodium, potassium, thiamin, total and available nicotinic acid and vitamin B6. The content of riboflavin was slightly higher, and of protein and carbohydrate slightly lower in CBP bread than in conventional bread. Differences in fatty acid composition of the two types of bread and in their content of total sulphur-containing amino acids were slight.

Type
Clinical and Human Nutrition
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1973

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1970). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 11th ed., p. 212. Washington, DC: Association of Offcial Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Barton-Wright, E. C. (1961). Lab. Pract. 10, 633.Google Scholar
Barton-Wright, E. C. (1962). Lab. Pract. 11, 28.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, N., Collins, T. H., Elton, G. A. H., Hollingsworth, D. F., Lisle, D. B. & Payne, P. R. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, K. M. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigen, E. & Shockman, G. D. (1963). In Analytical Microbiology p. 451[Kavanagh, F., editor]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greaves, J. P. & Tan, J. (1966). Nutrition, Lond. 20, 112.Google Scholar
Hurdle, A. D. F., Barton, D. & Searles, I. (1968). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 21, 1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent-Jones, D. W. & Amos, A. J. (1967). Modern Cereal Chemistry 6th ed., p. 566. London: Food Trade Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1967). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 18, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: National Food survey Committee (1971). domestic Food Consumption and Expenditure: 1969. London: HM Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968). Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations. Stat. Instrum. 1968 no. 218.Google Scholar
Moore, S. (1963). J. biol. Chem. 238, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists: Analytical Methods Committee (1951). Analyst, Lond 76, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storvick, C. A., Benson, E. M., Edwards, M. A. & Woodring, K. J. (1960). In Methods of Biochemical Analysis Vol. 8, p. 229 [Glick, D., editor]. New York: Interscience.Google Scholar