Ancient grains: half truths and fake news.

Why does the ISS define half-truths as fake news? Why does it do it with superficial articles?
The ISS has just published the news “Ancient grains are healthier than modern grains and contain less gluten” among the fake news. We'll explain why it seems like a serious superficiality to us!
The ISS (Higher Institute of Health, a public law body that, as a technical-scientific body of the National Health Service in Italy, performs research, experimentation, control, consultancy, documentation and training functions in the field of public health), for its functions should help us to live better, helping us to better understand what is happening. On its site, it periodically offers insights (as they should be) to clarify citizens' doubts. It seems to us that in the intervention we are proposing to you he does not do it. So here is the text of the article interspersed with our comments:

ISS: There is not enough scientific evidence to believe that wheat varieties cultivated about a century ago, recently reintroduced on the market, have nutritional properties that make them preferable to modern grains and that they are suitable for celiacs.
In recent years, some varieties of so-called “ancient” grains have been reintroduced to the market, presented as more authentic, less refined, more digestible and less rich in gluten than wheat currently cultivated on a large scale. It is a group of wheat varieties, including Tumminia, Saragolla, Senatore Cappelli, Russello, Bidì, Biancolilla, Ardito, Majorca and Perciasacchi, visually characterized by having a taller stem than modern grains. Widely cultivated in the first decades of the last century, they subsequently almost completely disappeared because, producing yields that were too low, they were not suitable for intensive cultivation.
The understandable commercial choice to renew, looking to the past, the field of cereal culture that is currently in crisis, has left room for the spread of some false myths, sometimes used to justify the rather high sales costs of these products.
It is not true, for example, that ancient grains are more authentic, as they are not subject to genetic selection. Although not genetically modified in the laboratory, even ancient grains, as well as modern grains, have often been selected through crossbreeding and hybridization, often starting from varieties found in other Mediterranean countries. This is the case of the Jeanh Rhetifah variety of Tunisian origin from which the famous Senatore Cappelli variety originated, or of the crosses of the “Rieti” wheat with a Dutch and a Japanese species, to obtain the more resistant “Ardito”.
We know, and we have always said, that since man became a farmer, “nature forces” experimenting first with mass selection (that is, collecting the seed of the best plants separately among the others to reproduce them in the following year) and then with Mendel he discovered the properties of crosses (making sure that the plants cross in a controlled manner even if in any case “natural” to improve productivity). These crosses or natural selections have always aimed at increasing productivity and resistance to pathogens, since the plants had to defend themselves against parasites.
These methods, still used, are however very different from the interventions carried out by man in the 1950s with the aid of radiation (from which Croso wheat was born in the 70s, for example) or GMO techniques in which nature is not only “invited” to cross paths, but is forced (not to use other terms...) and where productivity was focused above all, neglecting resistance to pathogens and adaptability to different environments because chemistry offered more and more remedies for these unfavorable factors (remedies that gradually came to be proven to be more expensive and harmful in the long term compared to the increase in natural defenses).
ISS: Regarding the amount of gluten, it is not true that ancient grains contain less than modern grains, and are therefore more suitable for celiacs.
We never said it! In our products, for example, it is clearly written “contains gluten”, thus declaring it not suitable for celiacs. If someone declares things wrong and dangerous to their health, they must be justly sanctioned!
ISS: Several scientific articles have studied the composition and the allergenic potential of the gluten of ancient grains compared to the most recent ones, but the results obtained have been contradictory. In the same way, although a limited amount of research conducted in experimental models or on humans has revealed a potential beneficial effect of ancient grains on certain cardio-metabolic and inflammatory parameters, the literature is not yet unanimous in recognizing these properties. It is therefore not possible to conclude that the consumption of derivatives from ancient grains can reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases.
We have learned, reading a lot of scientific literature, that natural mechanisms are very complex to understand and cannot be said to be “completely known” with just a few scientific articles. We have also learned, however, that Science cannot give definitive answers because it is constantly evolving, because we are always discovering new mechanisms, reactions, methods of study that allow us to understand more and more. So if some studies prove one thing and others prove the opposite, first of all it is necessary to understand if the materials and methods used are the same and, if they are, we dare to say that it is not scientific to say that a hypothesis is false if the available studies are contradictory!
ISS: Finally, it is often reported that ancient grains, compared to modern varieties, are healthier because they do not need herbicides and fertilizers or are less refined because their flours are stone-ground. The methods of cultivation and the type of milling have little to do with the varieties of wheat, but they depend on the producers' business choices. The offer of ancient grains is often offered by small producers who are particularly attentive to ensuring optimal conditions for the cultivation and handling of raw materials.
We also say this in a strong and determined way! This is why we only offer organic products, because we think that a food does not consist only of the nutritional factors contained, but also of all the things that can be found inside. And if there are also chemicals that are toxic or harmful to humans, this is not good! And let's also say that stone grinding is better than industrial grinding because the less intensive treatment obtained with stone avoids overheating of the flour (overheating that leads to nutrient losses, scientifically proven!). And we have studied and understood these things as farmers and agronomists, but we will gladly leave the floor to those who deal with food and health to have their say!
ISS: In light of the data currently available, there is no certainty that ancient grains should be preferred to modern grains to protect our health. They certainly represent an important resource for conserving agri-food biodiversity and recovering the cultural traditions of our country.
In light of the data currently available, for the protection of health, there is a certainty that it is preferable to eat foods free of harmful substances. There is also the certainty that it is preferable to eat a balanced diet, appropriately varying your diet and using products that have undergone as few industrial transformations and processing as possible.
We would add: ask yourself how some companies manage to offer ancient wheat flours at such a low price. We are aware that we are not perfectly efficient in managing logistics (we move a few quintals each time), but no matter how little wheat costs in the countryside and however efficient a company may be in transforming it... there is something wrong with us. What flour is really in those bags? How was that wheat produced? Do you want to see that we are among the few to actually put “only” ancient wheat flour inside the bags?
Luca Michieletto, agronomist El Thamiso