You realize you need "sugar" for the yeast so that the bread can rise, right? This isn't the middle ages and people like fluffy bread.

Bread will rise just fine without sugar! There are plenty of commercial loaves sold with no sugar, and I’ve been making bread for like 15 years and have only ever used sugar to make something like brioche.

https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45587/how-did-pe...

Um. I’ve ground wheat with rocks and cooked it over a fire. I can promise you it won’t rise. Your super-processed flour that you buy in the store has all the magic in it to work though.

Ever made wheat milk? It tastes sweet because wheat naturally contains water soluble sugars. They are more than enough to make the bread rise. The problem with your medieval bakery experience probably rested with too coarse grinding, too little hydrolize, not enough yeast and probably a combination of them.

Nah. Malted barley contains enzymes which break down the starches into sugars for the yeast to eat. This is brewing 101 type stuff.

I’m talking about wheat. But now I want to go read Bronze Rank Brewer again…

Well, hopefully we can keep up with the help of some uncorrupted public health experts who can read the studies, commission studies and meta-studies etc.

It helps that other countries have them too. It's hard to corrupt the entire world. I wouldn't worry (yet) about individual studies claiming some possible interaction, especially if they bunch up manky things (say, aim to study all emulsifiers at once, or all processing at once).

I would worry if, say, an additive was banned in many countries. And there's much that we know is bad, which is permitted for cultural reasons, and which therefore many people assume can't be that bad (smoked food in particular).