Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41316720›Full record

ReviewNutrition bulletin2026

Separating Myths From Facts About Bread and Health.

Peter R Shewry, Alison Lovegrove, Edward J M Joy, Lucia Segovia de la Revilla, Gary Frost, Fred Brouns

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrition bulletin, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Peter R ShewryRothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6205-2517
Alison LovegroveRothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9976-2299
Edward J M JoyRothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0106-866X
Lucia Segovia de la RevillaLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7712-2020
Gary FrostSection of Nutrition, Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0529-6325
Fred BrounsDepartment of Human Biology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School for Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5907-8388

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/RH/230003CBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/X010953/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/X011003/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

White bread remains a staple food in many countries and global consumption continues to increase. However, there is an increasingly contentious debate, carried out particularly in social media and the popular press, about the adverse effects on health of factory-produced sliced white bread as opposed to the whole grain breads made with traditional processes, with the classification of factory-produced sliced bread as 'ultra-processed' adding to these concerns. We examine the scientific basis for this debate and conclude that, despite the loss of bran and germ components during milling and the use of additives, factory-produced white bread is not intrinsically unhealthy. We therefore conclude that while wholegrain bread is generally recommended as a healthier choice, both white and wholegrain breads have a place in a healthy diet when consumed in moderation and as part of an overall nutrient-rich eating pattern.

Indexed as

BreadDiet, HealthyFood HandlingHumansNutritive ValueWhole Grainsadverse effectsbreadChorleywood bread processhealth benefitsUPFswheat

Identifiers

PMID41316720
PMCPMC12930236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.