Dwarf wheat, gluten, GMOs, ancient grains. A lot has been written, much of it confidently. Here is what the evidence actually supports — including the parts that don't flatter us.
If you have picked up Wheat Belly — or absorbed it secondhand, as most of us have — you have probably met a version of this story: wheat was fine for ten thousand years, then scientists shrank it, packed it with strange proteins, and made us all sick. It has since travelled well beyond that book.
It is a compelling story. Parts of it are true. And we sell flour, so it would be commercially convenient for us to repeat the whole thing and let you draw the obvious conclusion.
We are not going to do that — because when we actually went and read the research, some of the most-repeated claims turned out to be wrong. Not exaggerated. Wrong. And we would rather be the flour company you can believe than the one that told you what you wanted to hear.
Here is what genuinely changed, what didn't, and where the real story turns out to be hiding.
Ten thousand years in nine moments. The two marked turning point are the ones that actually mattered for what lands on your plate.
In the Fertile Crescent, humans begin cultivating the first wheats. Einkorn is the simplest — two sets of chromosomes. These are the grains people mean by "ancient wheat."
Emmer crosses naturally with a wild goat grass, producing hexaploid bread wheat: six sets of chromosomes. Nobody engineered this. It happened in a field. Every loaf you have ever eaten descends from that accident.
Steel roller milling spreads through Europe and America. It separates the starchy endosperm from the germ and bran quickly and cheaply. White flour becomes affordable for everyone — and shelf-stable, because the oil-rich germ that used to make flour go rancid has been removed. This is arguably the largest single change ever made to the staple food of the industrialised world. Almost nobody blames it.
Gonjiro Inazuka develops a short-strawed wheat variety. Short straw means the plant doesn't fall over when heavily fertilised — which means far more grain per field.
The variety travels to the United States, to breeder Orville Vogel, and then to Norman Borlaug at what became CIMMYT. Borlaug crosses it with Mexican varieties.
Pitic 62 and Penjamo 62 are released. Semi-dwarf wheat spreads across India, Pakistan and beyond. Yields roughly double in a decade. This is the Green Revolution — and it is credited with preventing famine for hundreds of millions of people. Borlaug receives the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.
Processed food expands rapidly, and manufacturers begin adding vital wheat gluten — concentrated, isolated gluten — to breads, snacks and meat substitutes to improve texture. Use of it roughly triples. Meanwhile flour consumption itself rises through the 1980s and 90s, then falls again after 2000. What changes most is not how much wheat we eat but how processed the form is.
Wheat Belly is published in 2011 and the dwarf-wheat argument enters the mainstream. In 2013 a USDA researcher publishes an analysis of a century of wheat data and finds no evidence for its central claim.
HB4 drought-tolerant wheat is cleared for commercial growing in Argentina, later Brazil and Paraguay. It is now in commercial production there, and remains the only GM wheat that is. Essentially all wheat traded and eaten worldwide is still non-GM.
These are the four things we get asked about most. Tap any of them to see what the evidence says.
This one is not merely overstated — it is backwards. Essentially all wheat grown and eaten worldwide is non-GM. Unlike maize or soy, GM wheat went uncommercialised for decades — Monsanto shelved its Roundup Ready wheat in 2004 over export-market resistance — largely because wheat is eaten directly by people.
The exception is HB4, a drought-tolerant variety approved in Argentina in 2020 and in Brazil and Paraguay in 2023. It was deregulated in the US in 2024. It is genuinely grown commercially — but it is a rounding error against the global crop.
Semi-dwarf wheat was produced by conventional cross-breeding — pollinating one plant with another and selecting the offspring, exactly as farmers have done for millennia. No genes were inserted from another organism.
So when a flour brand tells you their wheat is "non-GMO," they are telling you something true about essentially all wheat on earth. It is not a difference. We could put that badge on our packaging tomorrow. We won't.
This is the load-bearing claim in the popular books, and it is the one the evidence contradicts most directly.
In 2013, Donald Kasarda of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service published an analysis in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry examining wheat protein data going back to 1925. His conclusion, in his own careful words: he found “no evidence of any obvious trend” in gluten content over the past century. When old and new varieties are grown side by side under the same conditions, protein content is comparable.
Two honest caveats, because they matter. Kasarda’s survey covered the United States only, and he stated plainly that the historical data were “not suitable for rigorous statistical interpretation.” This is an absence of evidence for the higher-gluten claim rather than proof against it. That is still a long way from the confident assertion the popular books make.
Kasarda did raise an alternative worth knowing about: manufacturers add vital wheat gluten — isolated, concentrated gluten — to a growing share of processed food, and use of it has roughly tripled since 1977. He was scrupulous about not overclaiming, noting it is hard to say whether this matters next to the far larger amount of gluten people get from ordinary flour. We think it points somewhere useful all the same: at the industrial food system built on top of wheat, rather than at the plant.
This is a misunderstanding of what the dwarfing genes do.
The relevant genes are called Rht, for "reduced height." They work by making the plant less responsive to gibberellin, a growth hormone. The result is a shorter, sturdier stalk that can carry a heavier head of grain without collapsing in wind or rain.
They change the height of the plant in the field. There is no "dwarf protein" that ends up in your flour. The phrase sounds alarming precisely because it sounds like it means something specific, and it doesn't.
There is a legitimate, more careful question underneath: did the intense selection for yield during that period change the grain's protein profile in subtle ways? Researchers continue to study this, and some work suggests small shifts in particular protein fractions. But "they added a dwarf protein" is not what anyone found.
This one is genuinely interesting, and much more mixed than either side admits.
Ancient wheats do differ measurably from modern bread wheat. Einkorn, emmer and spelt tend to have higher total protein, but a different balance within it — less glutenin, proportionally more gliadin. Einkorn in particular has notably low glutenin.
The more relevant compounds may be ATIs (amylase-trypsin inhibitors), which have been implicated in non-coeliac wheat sensitivity. And here the results cut against the marketing:
One wrinkle that cuts against the simple reading: measured relative to protein content, spelt and emmer were no different from common wheat. Spelt has more ATIs largely because it has more protein in the first place.
So "ancient grain" is not a category that reliably predicts anything. Einkorn does look meaningfully different. Spelt — the ancient grain most often sold on exactly this promise — does not, on this measure.
And none of them are safe for coeliac disease. They all contain gluten. Marketing that blurs this line is not just imprecise, it is dangerous.
Three things, none of which are the plant.
A wheat kernel has three parts. The bran is fibre and minerals. The germ is the living embryo — oils, vitamin E, B vitamins. The endosperm is starch, the fuel supply.
Roller milling separates them efficiently, and white flour is essentially endosperm alone. That was not an accident or a conspiracy; it was a solution to a real problem. Whole-grain flour spoils, because the germ's oils oxidise. Remove the germ and flour keeps for a year. Remove the germ and you can ship it, warehouse it, and sell it cheaply to everyone.
The cost is that you removed most of the nutrition to achieve it. At standard extraction rates, refining strips out most of the fibre — and studies put the losses at around 60–80% for B vitamins and roughly 80% for vitamin E. A meaningful share of the protein goes with it.
This is where we have to correct a claim we ourselves half-believed before checking. It is widely said that we now eat far more wheat than our ancestors did. In the United States, at least, the opposite is true: per-capita flour consumption peaked around 1900 at roughly 220 lb a year, collapsed to about 110 lb by 1970, recovered to around 146 lb by 2000, and has been falling ever since.
So the honest version is narrower. Consumption rose meaningfully between 1970 and 2000, and it is still well below where it was a century ago. What genuinely changed is the form: far more of it now arrives as highly processed product, often with vital wheat gluten added. If something about modern wheat consumption is worth worrying about, that is the more defensible place to look — not the variety in a farmer's field.
For most of agricultural history, people ate a wide range of grains: barley, millets, sorghum, rye, oats, buckwheat, all alongside wheat. Today a handful of crops supply most of the world's calories.
This is, in our view, the loss that gets the least attention and deserves the most. Different grains bring different fibres, different amino acid profiles, different minerals. Barley and oats are known for beta-glucan; finger millet for its calcium content; pearl millet for iron; sorghum for resistant starch. Wheat is not especially notable for any of those — and none of them do what wheat does for dough. That is an argument for variety, not for replacement.
Once flour is ground, oxidation begins immediately. The fats in the germ start to degrade; some vitamins decline; the aroma compounds that make fresh flour smell sweet and nutty dissipate. Flour can spend a long time in the supply chain before it reaches you — milled, warehoused, shipped, and shelved — and in an import-dependent market like Singapore that chain is longer than most.
We should be careful here, because this is the point that most flatters us. We are not claiming a measured nutritional gap between our flour and a bag off the shelf — we have not run that study. What we will claim is the part that is simply a matter of dates: ours was whole grain last week. And it is the difference we think you can smell when you open the bag.
We think you deserve to know what we believe and what we are not claiming, in plain language.
Deliberately. It is nutritious, it performs beautifully, and the evidence that it is inherently harmful does not hold up. We are not going to pretend otherwise to sell you something.
Stone milling grinds the whole kernel together rather than separating the germ and bran out, so they stay in your flour. We grind slowly and in small batches to keep the process gentle. We would rather say that plainly than make claims about exact temperatures we have not measured.
Because freshness is the part of this story we can actually do something about. Oxidation starts at the mill, so we start the clock as late as possible.
Barley, jowar, bajra, ragi, oats, soy, methi. Not because wheat is bad, but because five grains give your body more than one grain can.
If you came here hoping we would confirm that modern wheat is poisoning you, we are sorry to disappoint. The honest version is less dramatic and, we think, more useful: eat the whole grain, eat a wider range of them, and eat them fresher. That is a harder thing to put on a label. It happens to be what we built the company around.
We would rather you check us than take our word for it. Where we disagree with a popular book, we have linked the research so you can judge for yourself.
We cannot change the last hundred and fifty years of milling history. We can grind your grain this week instead of last winter.
See our blends Read the grain science