Talk:Enriched flour

Is the USA the only country that enriches flour?

Can anyone tell me if the USA is the only country adding synthetic vitamins to their wheat flour? What about Canada - is this also "required" by law in Canada, or is it only some manufacturers that chose to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.11.27 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This site lists 86 countries that enrich wheat flour. http://www.ffinetwork.org/global_progress/ David notMD (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Enriched Flower Bad for you?

Does anyone know anything about some nutritionists saying that Enriched Flower is bad for you and should be avoided (along with things like High Fructose Corn Syrup? --Quasar 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

high-fructose corn syrup is pure sugar, with no nutritional benefit (other than calories).

Enriched flour certainly has more B vitamin than refined flour that hasn't been enriched. It's just that whole grain flour is better than enriched flour.

Have you heard about the glycemic index? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a migraine trigger - I know because it's one of mine! I'd love for that fact to be reflected on the main page, but don't know of a scholarly citation to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.218.91 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Diseases

I know that they started enriching flour to prevent diseases and I wanted to find out more about those diseases. However, this article doesn't state which diseases they are. Some research into this would be helpful.

• The diseases it helps to prevent would be those caused by deficiencies in the nutrients added back in to the flour. Examples would include folate deficiency and iron deficiency -Aqua 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Enriched Flour is a miracle drug

According to this article

Many claims are made on this page.

No citations to follow them up.

According to this article, Vitamin water will make us 6'6" in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.193.17 (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Toxic kinds of iron

"There is also a significant difference in the type of iron added to enriched flour, a type that may be toxic rather than nutritional." Any non-crank source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.162.47 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Enriched flour/CommentsTalk:Enriched flour/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Only basic information. No refs and no further information. -- Warfreak 07:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Enriched flour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131520443500/http://www.cwb.ca/wheat-to-bread to http://www.cwb.ca/wheat-to-bread
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425154155/http://www.graininformationservice.co.uk/content/1/58/vitamins-and-minerals.html to http://www.graininformationservice.co.uk/content/1/58/vitamins-and-minerals.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the "Flour processing and nutrient loss" section

Two whole paragraphs without a single citation, and it seems to mostly be describing the creation of White Flour, not Enriched Flour per se. It also suggests that enriched flour is bleached when this is not necessarily the case (there are unbleached white/enriched flours available), then also suggests that the bleaching is to create a whiter colour, when resources I find suggest that it is done in large part to age the flour for better dough consistency. I don't feel like I know enough aboot flour to correct these problems and I don't think it'd be right to just axe the whole section, thoughts? FinetalPies (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this; it completely lacks citations and a lot of the info is suspect. I'd have to do some digging on sources but can do it at some point.

And yes, bleaching is just chemical aging. Just letting flour sit exposed to air will do the same thing, it just takes longer. 73.68.62.76 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)