The United States and her "Magic Wand"

Americans' Tumultuous Relationship with White Bread from 1940 to 1990

Ingrid Slattery, '23

Issue: 1

Bread enjoys the moniker, “Staff of Life.” As the foundation of many diets, this food staple has ignited revolutions in countless societies since its ancient origins. But what happens when the revolution is the bread itself? In the 1920s nutritionists discovered vitamins. This new knowledge revealed that white bread – the fashion of the time – lacked the nutritional value that had made whole wheat bread the centerpiece of many diets. The resultant decline in national nutritional health became a concerning weakness in World War Two. Recognizing the nation’s dislike of whole wheat bread, the wartime government adopted an easier solution. The chemical enrichment of white flour was a voluntary program that featured a patriotic public education effort, which warped emerging nutritional information to support the enriched bread. The novel white bread soared to popularity in the 1940s and 1950s as a symbol of health and American technological prowess even as nutritionists favored whole wheat bread. In the 1970s, Washington lost its authoritative voice on nutrition when the White House and the Federal Drug Administration presented conflicting recommendations. Left to develop its own interpretations of food science, the American public gradually understood the nutritionists’ message and began eating more whole wheat bread in the 1980s. The rise and fall of enriched white bread in the U.S. reflected the decentralization of scientific knowledge after World War Two. As the Federal Government lost its wartime command over nutrition recommendations, the gourmet, counterculture, and mainstream American communities developed diverse interpretations of the evolving science and moved away from the old symbol of American modernity in favor of whole wheat bread.

Fashionable Malnutrition

Scientists, Companies, and the Average American’s Pre-War Relationship with Nutrition

Before World War Two, Americans' diets lacked crucial nutrients in part because they consumed commercially-made, white bread in ignorance of nutrition science. In the late 1800s, processed food emerged as a healthier and quicker alternative to home cooking. Store-bought bread exemplified this global transition as the product replaced time-consuming cultural foods.[1] The industrial product was supposedly healthier too. A Pender’s bread advertisement from 1935 touted the “energy” that their “health-building” white bread offered, while still advertising whole wheat loaves in smaller print (see image to the right).[2] This shift continued through 1941, when 98.5% of flour consumed in the U.S. was white.[3] However, this transition did not mark a period of improved nutrition for Americans. In February of 1941, Dr. Lousie Stanley, the chief of the Bureau of Home Economics (BHE) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), claimed that one-third of American diets failed to meet the “safety line” for adequate nutrition.[4] Worse, the population was ignorant of this plight. A Gallup poll found that before 1941, 91% of Americans did not know what vitamins were.[5] This combination of public ignorance of nutrition and sorely lacking diets prompted the scientific community to question the nation’s budding obsession with white, store-bought bread.

In the 1930s, nutritionists confirmed that white bread was an inadequate replacement for whole wheat bread; however, they struggled to initiate popular dietary reform. As nutritionists discovered vitamins beginning in the 1920s, they developed skepticism of processed foods such as white bread, which lacked crucial vitamins from their unprocessed counterparts.[6] The USDA chief of animal nutrition, Paul Howe, addressed this nutritional decline in the department’s 1939 Yearbook of Agriculture. He claimed that refining foods “create[s] special nutritional problems when products of this type form the major part of a diet,” as in the case of bread.[7] He also stressed that nutrition education was a “promising solution” to flagging American diets. He commended the USDA’s weekly Market Basket publication, which included healthy recipes, but called for more such efforts.[8] Despite nutritionists’ common knowledge that white bread detracted from the health of Americans, the lack of public education warranted that discovery ineffective to the general public.

America’s “Magic Wand”
The Wartime Government Revolutionizes Nutrition

The Federal Government became concerned with the poor nutritional health of the population during World War Two. On January 29, 1941, newspaper articles across the country reported on a statement from the National Research Council, announcing a voluntary flour enrichment program.[9] The Federal Government would encourage milling and baking companies to chemically enrich white flour with nutrients such as iron and B-group vitamins. The press release claimed that enriched bread would buffer the nation against the "stress and strains of war and threats of war" at only a 0.2-cent jump in production price per loaf.[10] The following transition to enriched white flour would revolutionize Americans’ understanding of nutrition.

The government-run public education campaign that followed the announcement provided objective scientific facts primarily in support of a single solution: enriched white bread. Wrapped in patriotic fervor, nutrition education became synonymous with the promotion of enriched bread, despite tepid endorsements of naturally-nutritious whole wheat bread. In mid-February of 1941, Dr. Stewart, the head of the Bureau of Home Economics (BHE) explained that proper nutrition was a way for private citizens to "make a personal contribution to total defense" and that the enriched bread "armed [the U.S.] with vitamins." She added that whole wheat bread was "just as nutritious, but the general public [had] been slow to adopt it,"[11] and thus the government turned to an artificial remedy for insufficient diets. Beginning that September, the BHE released promotions of enriched bread that would “build a NEW [sic] America” in Liberty Magazine, adding that whole wheat bread was equally healthy.[12] That year, the BHE also wrote a pamphlet titled "Eat the Right Food to Help Keep You Fit" which the National Defence Commission distributed.[13] The surgeon general endorsed the program in print[14] and the movie, Wartime Nutrition, produced by the Office of War Information.[15] The wartime radio show Listen America also introduced the bread[16] as the Red Cross and state governments held nutrition classes.[17] Heavy advertising from private baking companies such as Wonder Bread’s “Energy Charged” campaign in 1945 supplied the same information with even more confidence (see image below).[18] Good Housekeeping even told American homemakers in 1942 that it was their “patriotic duty” to use enriched products.”[19] As the U.S. government applied scientific ingenuity to every aspect of the war, chemically-enriched white bread presented a seamless continuation of this mentality. Due to extensive government and corporate promotion, the novel product became connected to patriotism and science in a way that old-fashioned whole wheat bread could not.

As the government charged into its enrichment policy, the president sought nutritionists’ opinion, which hesitantly endorsed enrichment as a secondary solution to simply returning to whole wheat bread. In May of 1941, President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt brought together the country’s leading nutritionists in the National Nutrition Conference for Defence.[20] In his opening presentation on May 26th, the conference chairman, Paul V. McNutt,[21] claimed, “The resultant [enriched] flour has not achieved the nutritional level of the whole wheat […] Enrichment is resorted to because of limits of public acceptance.”[22] His colleagues supported his view that enrichment was merely an emergency solution, inferior to the adoption of whole wheat, yet they “reluctantly”[23] approved the plan for the same reasons. The surgeon general contradicted his previous public enthusiasm, admitting, “If the public continues to demand pallid bread," the government may as well enrich it.[24] McNutt stressed that it was crucial that “the consumer [was] not led to believe that enrichment constitute[d] some sort of magic wand that change[d] the character of bread and [made] it a substitute for other necessary foods."[25] He cautioned that this science-washing would lead Americans to develop an unhealthy relationship with nutrition, veering away from whole, balanced diets in favor of miracle bread – Wonder Bread. Although some nutritionists fully supported the program, many authoritative voices emphasized the dangers of a full transition to enriched food staples as the public developed its knowledge of nutrition

Despite the scientists’ concerns, the government pushed ahead. By the time of the May conference, thirty-nine out of the forty-five major flour millers carried only enriched flour, and an estimated 50% of flour consumed by individuals was enriched. By mid-1942, 75% of white bread made in the U.S. was enriched through voluntary compliance with the Federal recommendation.[26] From 1943 to 1946, a war order required that all flour produced for interstate sale be enriched; however, many states passed laws that enforced enrichment for the foreseeable future.[27] South Carolina claimed to be the first of these states in June of 1942,[28] and by February of 1945, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama had already passed similar legislation.[29] This trend continued. By 1952, twenty states had joined this list.[30] The popular, corporate, and legislative adoption of the enrichment policy swept the country to create a rapid transition to enriched white bread which would outlast the war that had introduced it.

After the war, it became clear that enriched white bread had transcended the war to become a lasting American standard. The U.S. maintained immense pride in its food surplus and technologically-advanced kitchens. Scenes such as the “kitchen debate” in 1959 epitomize the U.S.’s identity as the king of modernity.[31] In keeping with that particular patriotic identity, Americans held onto the factory-made, chemically-enriched bread, carrying Wonder Bread and similar products to the peak of their popularity in the 1950s and 1960s.[32] Wonder Bread catered to America’s attraction to scientific foods in 1960, when it advertised its “double milk loaf,” which emerged from the Continental Baking Companies' own, “testing and research laboratory” as a “doubly enriched” white bread product.[33] During this period, state enrichment laws dating back to the war also stayed in place. The continued popularity and even enforcement of enriched white bread in the decades after World War Two suggested that the nutritionist’s “magic wand” fears had come true, and Americans would not return to whole foods to sustain an adequate diet, but instead towards artificial products even after the emergency atmosphere of the war had faded.

Decentralization
Washington’s Researchers and Lawmakers Rift and Loose Authority

Although white bread maintained its hold on the market, scientific reports emerged in the 1960s and 1970s that confirmed that whole wheat bread was healthier than enriched white bread. Despite general concerns over eating carbohydrates,[34] researchers found that whole wheat bread was actually quite healthy as a significant source of protein and iron.[35] In the 70s, scientists began distinguishing between complex carbs and refined carbs,[36] the latter, found in white bread, was indeed fattening; however, the former, found in whole wheat bread, was a good source of fiber and could accelerate weight loss.[37] Nutritionists also suspected that enriched white bread was missing “micronutrients” that whole wheat bread contained.[38] These developments were published in the “Dietary Goals for the United States,” the 1977 report of the Senate’s Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs.[39] In the 1960s and 1970s, scientists published work that confirmed their initial doubts about the efficacy of enriched products over whole wheat ones.

During the same period, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) developed a similar hesitance toward enrichment. The FDA worried that the over-enrichment of food products gave Americans false faith in the health of their foods. In 1962, the FDA proposed an enforced maximum level of enrichment which would limit the types and quantities of vitamins added.[40] Although most cases of over-enrichment were not directly harmful to human health, they were often unnecessary or framed unhealthy foods, such as sugar, as healthier than they were.[41] The FDA’s motion confirmed the “magic wand”[42] fears of the nutritionists at the 1941 conference. The government and corporate promotion of enriched white bread had, in the FDA’s view, guided Americans towards vitamin supplements and fortified foods rather than intrinsically healthy diets. It was clear that despite the government’s tepid hedging that whole wheat was “just as nutritious,”[43] this wartime, band-aid solution had discouraged Americans from reforming their diets.

The White House and Congress consistently ignored other government nutrition research and resisted the FDA’s efforts to regulate enriched foods and vitamin supplements, weakening public nutrition suggestions from all government branches. Nixon called a White House Conference of Food, Nutrition, and Health in 1969.[44] The panel recommended that millers "universally" enrich their flour products, especially with iron to combat the deficiency in "women of child-bearing age."[45] Not only did this recommendation move in the opposite direction of the FDA, but it ignored the USDA and the Senate’s own research which demonstrated that whole grains were a source of iron. In 1976, after rejecting the FDA’s counsel and limiting its authority to impose enrichment maximums, Congress stripped the FDA of its regulatory power over the vitamin industry. In 1997, they would expand this restriction to include enriched foods.[46] Unlike the Federal Government's wartime front, which had deftly introduced enriched bread in the 1940s, the Federal Government of the latter half of the century presented divided views on the issue of nutrition, still offering Americans scientific facts, but this time without authoritative, accompanying policies.

By Popular Demand
The American Public Thinks for Itself and is Disillusioned with Enriched White Bread

Receiving mixed messages from Washington, the American public interpreted nutrition information for themselves. Although public policy was muddled, organizations such as the USDA published accessible nutrition research through the 1980s.[47] Many Americans continued to focus on vitamin intake during the 1960s, but the counterculture movement and the gourmet food movements began to advocate against enriched white bread.[48] The classically American product also suffered from the growing popularity of foreign cuisine spurred by the globalization of people and trade.[49] The counterculture, gourmet, and foreign food movements popularized the scientific evidence in favor of whole wheat bread and together would initiate a decline in enriched white bread’s popularity by the 1980s.

The counterculture movement’s denunciation of enriched white bread in the 1960s and 1970s was particularly damning. The historian Warren James Belasco explains that the “plastic food” symbolized white suburbia and Americans’ obsession with sanitation and corporations.[50] Fellow historian Aaron Bobrow-Strain affirms this explanation, adding that the Hippies objected to white bread's unnatural qualities and its participation in American “cultural imperialism,”[51] tracing back to its wartime origins. The Quicksilver Times, a counterculture newspaper, called white bread “counterrevolutionary” and satirized Wonder Bread’s “builds strong bodies in 12 ways” slogan.[52] In a slight complication of the historians’ interpretations, the writers seemed to avoid white bread primarily on the basis of well-substantiated health claims [53] rather than symbolism, although both were referenced. In 1970, the same paper published an entire spread about homemade bread, which tied white bread to Nixon via images in the article header (see image below) and criticized the big baking companies.[54] In the early 1970s, counterculture expressed a resounding objection to white bread on account of its poor nutrition in comparison to whole wheat bread and its symbolic representation of white suburbia, chemicals, corporations, and even Nixon.

By the 80s, the combination of cultural and scientific factors inspired an uptick in whole wheat bread consumption. A 1985 report affirmed that whole wheat consumption was growing and attributed this development to successful government nutrition education efforts.[55] They cited the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans,” published by the USDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as an example of effective communication.[56] The pamphlet was written for a lay audience and updated every five years.[57] The 1980 guidelines distinguished between complex and refined carbs, a critical distinction in favor of whole wheat bread.[58] In 1988, the Kansas City Star reported that, for the first time, flour consumption rose faster than the population, and the largest area of growth was in “variety breads” (see included graphic below). White bread also rose, but not as notably. Maybe Americans cared about getting their complex carbs, maybe they wanted to eat gourmet or cultural foods, or maybe they hated everything white, processed, and militant in origin, but whatever their reason, they were clearly eating more whole wheat bread in the late 1980s.

The popularity of enriched white bread in the United States traces the changing role of the Federal Government in nutrition science. The chemically-enhanced bread provided an emergency, wartime solution to a poorly nourished nation that had developed a strong preference for store-bought, white bread. At that time, the extensive power of the wartime government publicized scientific information only in support of their policy of enrichment, a tactic that tied enriched white bread to American modernism and patriotism. The private sector and individual states helped maintain the new product’s popularity during and after the war. In the decades that followed, nutrition research questioning enriched bread was published directly to the people, free from government interpretation. Furthermore, the Federal Government presented conflicting recommendations which weakened its authority and encouraged Americans to evaluate their diets independently. In addition to individual Americans considering white bread’s lack of fiber and other nutrients, this gradual popularization of science spurred the counterculture and gourmet food movements to reject white bread. Together, these popular factors inspired an uptick in whole wheat bread consumption in the late 1980s.

Perhaps most significant, though, is the fact that the nutritionists themselves barely changed their recommendations in the fifty years discussed. Nutritionists asserted as early as the 1930s that white flour was nutritionally poorer than whole wheat flour. Subsequent research only clarified these ideas. Therefore it was not the science, but its interpreters that dictated American diets. In the 1940s, that interpreter was the wartime government, but it eventually became everyone from food snobs, to Hippies, to recent immigrants. Ironically, it was the latter, non-expert group that finally listened to the nutritionists. The story of white bread in the U.S. is a clear reminder that science may deal in immutable facts, but it is remarkably delicate when it ventures out of the lab to help an entire nation of people.

Bibliography

Belasco, Warren James. Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took on the Food Industry. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007.

Bellingham Herald (Bellingham, WA). "Enriched Bread to Go on Market." January 29, 1941, 10. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A114CEFC7EE7A1DF8%40EANX-K12-150DF940C3797AF6%402430024-150B610F4EC55DA1%409-150B610F4EC55DA1%40.

Bobrow-Strain, Aaron. White Bread: A Social History of the Store-bought Loaf. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2012.

"First Lack of Defense." Liberty, September 13, 1941, 7. https://link-gale-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/FA4200059128/GDCS?u=s0936&sid=bookmark-GDCS&xid=9b4b4b83.

Continental Baking Co. "How to Step Up Energy." Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, NE), April 20, 1944, 2. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A1106B5BBD4B623A8%40EANX-K12-13730718BA142567%402431201-1369DAE900031E8C%401-1369DAE900031E8C%40.

–––. "How to Step Up Energy." Tulsa World (Tulsa, OK), April 21, 1944, 14. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11C57F37B8EA58CA%40EANX-K12-16D1C80C918D95C9%402431202-16D131916E054281%4013-16D131916E054281%40.

–––. "Hurry! Hurry! Hurrry!...Try New Energy-Charged Wonder Bread." Kansas City Times (Kansas City, MO), May 5, 1944, 10. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11FF2A92A519802A%40EANX-K12-16B591CA6927ADB0%402431216-16B44133A54862F7%409-16B44133A54862F7%40.

Dallas Morning News (Dallas, TX). "Wonder Bread's New Double Milk Loaf to Be Available to Homemakers." March 17, 1960, sec. 5, 4. https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A0F99DDB671832188%40EANX-K12-10010E256E2324FE%402437011-10010E2666B713CF%4059-10010E2A55734909%40Wonder%2BBread%2527s%2BNew%2BDouble%2BMilk%2BLoaf%2Bto%2Bbe%2BAvailable%2Bto%2BHomemakers.

Estes, Steve. "PB&J." Gastronomica 17, no. 2 (2017): 5-15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26362435.

Federal Security Agency, comp. Proceedings of the National Nutrition Conference for Defense. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1942. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435009094731.
Note: The conference occurred on May 26 - 28 of 1941; however, this record was evidently printed later.

Gyorgy Scrinis. Nutritionism: The Science and Politics of Dietary Advice. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=619708&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Howe, Paul E. "Can Food Habits Be Changed?" Yearbook of Agriculture, USDA, 1939. PDF.
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43893647/pdf

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Use of Dietary Reference Intakes in Nutrition Labeling. "Overview of Food Fortification in the United States and Canada." In Dietary Reference Intakes: Guiding Principles for Nutrition Labeling and Fortification. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208880/.

Laudan, Rachel. "A Plea for Culinary Modernism: Why We Should Love New, Fast, Processed Food." Gastronomica 1, no. 1 (2001): 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2001.1.1.36.

Levenstein, Harvey. "Food and Cuisines." In Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 398-403. Vol. 3. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3401801547/GVRL?u=s0936&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=58370ff7.

New York Times (New York, N.Y.). "Will Offer Bread, Vitamin-Enriched: Millers and Bakers Will Begin Production of Fortified Loaf to Help Diet." January 30, 1941, 14. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/will-offer-bread-vitamin-enriched/docview/106127803/se-2?accountid=49211.

Oregonian (Portland, OR). "Fred Meyer Is First to Bring You 'Vitamin Enriched' Bread at no Increase in Price." February 4, 1941, 5. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11A73E5827618330%40EANX-K12-12A7B782A9659952%402430030-12A0724B1A60B046%404-12A0724B1A60B046%40.

Paddleford, Clementine. "Food for Conversation." Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), February 11, 1945, 72. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A122AFBBA107AC9E4%40EANX-K12-126E044FC9BC1BD4%402431498-126DF90F0CAD5C3A%4071-126DF90F0CAD5C3A%40.

Panel on Food Manufacturing and Processing. "Voluntary Action to Help the Poor; A. What Can Be Done by Farmers and the Food Industry." In Panel Recommendations to the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health. N.p., 1969. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo.31924104673052.

Pender's. "'Gee, Mom! Our Pride Bread is Certainly Good.'" Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, NC), November 4, 1935, 18. https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11260DC9BB798E30%40EANX-K12-151FC7E296F9AEAF%402428111-151D58FB0166F5BA%4017-151D58FB0166F5BA%40.

Quicksilver Times (Washington, DC). "Big Food Thing." September 1, 1970, 22. https://jstor.org/stable/community.28042876.

Quicksilver Times (Washington, DC). "Food." September 15, 1970, 19. https://jstor.org/stable/community.28042877.

Quicksilver Times (Washington, DC). "Leaving Home for Fun and Profit." December 8, 1970, 18-19. https://jstor.org/stable/community.28042883.

Sanderson, Gary W., and Bernard S. Schweigert. "Technical Forces Shaping the U.S. Food-Processing Industry." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67, no. 5 (1985): 1143-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241389.

Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Dietary Goals for the United States, S. Doc. No. 95-Second Edition, 1st Sess. (Dec. 1977). https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uiug.30112023368936.

The State: South Carolina's Progressive Newspaper (Columbia, SC). "Millers Plan to Enrich Flour." June 11, 1942, 11. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11210D30DA68B248%40EANX-K12-1470833AF8FF59AC%402430522-147080BF5DAE108F%4010-147080BF5DAE108F%40.

Steimel, Dirck. "Bread Makes a Comeback." Kansas City Star (Kansas City, MO), March 20, 1988, sec. F, 1&12. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A1126152C152E4978%40EANX-K12-16493DCC172C71DD%402447241-164938C2656F64E9%40117.

Stephenson, Malvina. "Vitamins Held Defense Need: Federal Home Economist Is Urging Balanced Diet for Public Health." New York Times (New York, NY), February 16, 1941, sec. D, 4. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/vitamins-held-defense-need/docview/105599424/se-2?accountid=49211.

Trenton Evening Times (Trenton, NJ). "New Vitamin Bread for Sale in Spring." January 29, 1941, 10. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A1236872C1F6A0AE3%40EANX-K12-1269082FC17675FE%402430024-126764F0D4984447%409-126764F0D4984447%40.

United States Department of Agriculture. History of Human Nutrition Research in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: People, Events, and Accomplishments. Edited by Jacqueline L. Dupont and Gary R. Beecher. N.p.: Agricultural Research Service, 2017.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/oc/np/HistoryofHumanNutritionResearch/HistoryofHumanNutritionResearch.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, and United States Department of Health and Human Services. "Dietary Guidelines for Americans." Accessed January 7, 2023. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/about-dietary-guidelines/previous-editions.

–––. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Publication no. 1. N.p., 1980.
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/about-dietary-guidelines/previous-editions/1980-dietary-guidelines-americans
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/1980%20DGA.pdf

Footnotes

[1] Rachel Laudan, "A Plea for Culinary Modernism: Why We Should Love New, Fast, Processed Food," Gastronomica 1, no. 1 (2001): 41-42, https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2001.1.1.36.

[2] Pender's, "'Gee, Mom! Our Pride Bread is Certainly Good,'" Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, NC), November 4, 1935, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11260DC9BB798E30%40EANX-K12-151FC7E296F9AEAF%402428111-151D58FB0166F5BA%4017-151D58FB0166F5BA%40.

[3] Federal Security Agency, comp., Proceedings of the National Nutrition Conference for Defense (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1942), 180, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435009094731.

[4] Malvina Stephenson, "Vitamins Held Defense Need: Federal Home Economist Is Urging Balanced Diet for Public Health," New York Times (New York, NY), February 16, 1941, sec. D, https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/vitamins-held-defense-need/docview/105599424/se-2?accountid=49211.

[5] Aaron Bobrow-Strain, White Bread: A Social History of the Store-bought Loaf (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2012), 117.

[6] Gyorgy Scrinis, Nutritionism: the Science and Politics of Dietary Advice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 67, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=619708&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

[7] Paul E. Howe, "Can Food Habits Be Changed?," Yearbook of Agriculture, USDA, 1939, 133, PDF, https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43893647/pdf.

[8] Ibid, 137-138.

[9] Bobrow-Strain, White Bread, 118; "Enriched Bread to Go on Market," Bellingham Herald (Bellingham, WA), January 29, 1941, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A114CEFC7EE7A1DF8%40EANX-K12-150DF940C3797AF6%402430024-150B610F4EC55DA1%409-150B610F4EC55DA1%40; "New Vitamin Bread for Sale in Spring," Trenton Evening Times (Trenton, NJ), January 29, 1941, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A1236872C1F6A0AE3%40EANX-K12-1269082FC17675FE%402430024-126764F0D4984447%409-126764F0D4984447%40.

[10] "Will Offer Bread, Vitamin-Enriched: Millers and Bakers Will Begin Production of Fortified Loaf to Help Diet," New York Times (New York, N.Y.), January 30, 1941, https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/will-offer-bread-vitamin-enriched/docview/106127803/se-2?accountid=49211.

[11] Malvina Stephenson, "Vitamins Held," sec. D.

[12] "First Lack of Defense." Liberty, September 13, 1941, 7, https://link-gale-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/FA4200059128/GDCS?u=s0936&sid=bookmark-GDCS&xid=9b4b4b83.

[13] Malvina Stephenson, "Vitamins Held," sec. D.

[14] Bobrow-Strain, White Bread, 118.

[15] USDA, History of Human, 35.

[16] Bobrow-Strain, White Bread, 119.

[17] Federal Security Agency, Proceedings of the National, XIII.

[18] Advertising began as early as February of 1941 and continued through the war. Interestingly, Wonder Bread was slow to advertise enriched bread. Over three years after the first enriched bread ads appeared in print, Wonder Bread launched an advertising campaign that focused on enrichment. Citations for the 1941 advertisement, and Wonder Bread’s “Energy-Charged” campaign follow respectively; "Fred Meyer Is First to Bring You 'Vitamin Enriched' Bread at no Increase in Price," Oregonian (Portland, OR), February 4, 1941, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11A73E5827618330%40EANX-K12-12A7B782A9659952%402430030-12A0724B1A60B046%404-12A0724B1A60B046%40; [First of following three sources is pictured] Continental Baking Co., "How to Step Up Energy," Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, NE), April 20, 1944, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A1106B5BBD4B623A8%40EANX-K12-13730718BA142567%402431201-1369DAE900031E8C%401-1369DAE900031E8C%40; Continental Baking Co., "How to Step Up Energy," Tulsa World (Tulsa, OK), April 21, 1944, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11C57F37B8EA58CA%40EANX-K12-16D1C80C918D95C9%402431202-16D131916E054281%4013-16D131916E054281%40; Continental Baking Co., "Hurry! Hurry! Hurrry!...Try New Energy-Charged Wonder Bread," Kansas City Times (Kansas City, MO), May 5, 1944, [Page #], https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11FF2A92A519802A%40EANX-K12-16B591CA6927ADB0%402431216-16B44133A54862F7%409-16B44133A54862F7%40.

[19] Steve Estes, "PB&J," Gastronomica 17, no. 2 (2017): 8, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26362435.

[20] USDA, History of Human Nutrition Research in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: People, Events, and Accomplishments, ed. Jacqueline L. Dupont and Gary R. Beecher (n.p.: Agricultural Research Service, 2017), 33.

[21] Federal Security Agency, comp., Proceedings of the National Nutrition Conference for Defense (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1942), 1, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435009094731.

[22] Ibid, 6.

[23] Ibid, 26.

[24] Ibid, 221-222.

[25] Ibid, 6.

[26] Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Use of Dietary Reference Intakes in Nutrition Labeling, "Overview of Food Fortification in the United States and Canada," in Dietary Reference Intakes: Guiding Principles for Nutrition Labeling and Fortification (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003),, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208880/

[27] Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Use of Dietary Reference Intakes in Nutrition Labeling, "Overview of Food."

[28] "Millers Plan to Enrich Flour," The State: South Carolina's Progressive Newspaper (Columbia, SC), June 11, 1942, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A11210D30DA68B248%40EANX-K12-1470833AF8FF59AC%402430522-147080BF5DAE108F%4010-147080BF5DAE108F%40.

[29] Clementine Paddleford, "Food for Conversation," Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), February 11, 1945, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.hopkins.idm.oclc.org/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A122AFBBA107AC9E4%40EANX-K12-126E044FC9BC1BD4%402431498-126DF90F0CAD5C3A%4071-126DF90F0CAD5C3A%40.

[30] Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Use of Dietary Reference Intakes in Nutrition Labeling, "Overview of Food."

[31] Harvey Levenstein, "Food and Cuisines," in Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., ed. Stanley I. Kutler (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003), 3:402, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3401801547/GVRL?u=s0936&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=58370ff7.

[32] Bobrow-Strain, White Bread, 167.

[33] "Wonder Bread's New Double Milk Loaf to Be Available to Homemakers," Dallas Morning News (Dallas, TX), March 17, 1960, sec. 5, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=EANX-K12&docref=image/v2%3A0F99DDB671832188%40EANX-K12-10010E256E2324FE%402437011-10010E2666B713CF%4059-

[34] Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Dietary Goals for the United States, S. Doc. No. 95-Second Edition, 1st Sess. (Dec. 1977), 21, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uiug.30112023368936.

[35] USDA, History of Human, 77; 83.

[36] Gyorgy Scrinis, Nutritionism: the Science, 76.

[37] Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, 21.

[38] Ibid, 22

[39] Ibid, (I)

[40] Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Use of Dietary Reference Intakes in Nutrition Labeling, "Overview of Food."

[41] Ibid.

[42] Federal Security Agency, Proceedings of the National, 6.

[43] Malvina Stephenson, "Vitamins Held," sec. D.

[44] Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Use of Dietary Reference Intakes in Nutrition Labeling, "Overview of Food."

[45] Panel on Food Manufacturing and Processing, "Voluntary Action to Help the Poor; A. What Can Be Done by Farmers and the Food Industry," in Panel Recommendations to the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health (n.p., 1969), 427(digitized), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo.31924104673052.

[46] Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Use of Dietary Reference Intakes in Nutrition Labeling, "Overview of Food."

[47] Gyorgy Scrinis, Nutritionism: The Science, 74.

[48] Estes, "PB&J," 11,12.

[49] Levenstein, "Food and Cuisines," 3:402.

[50] Warren James Belasco, Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took on the Food Industry, 2nd ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007), 48-50.

[51] Bobrow-Strain, White Bread, 14, 167.

[52] "Food," Quicksilver Times (Washington, DC), September 15, 1970, 19, https://jstor.org/stable/community.28042877.

[53] "Leaving Home for Fun and Profit," Quicksilver Times (Washington, DC), December 8, 1970, 18, https://jstor.org/stable/community.28042883.

[54] Big Food Thing," Quicksilver Times (Washington, DC), September 1, 1970, 22, https://jstor.org/stable/community.28042876.

[55] Gary W. Sanderson and Bernard S. Schweigert, "Technical Forces Shaping the U.S. Food-Processing Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67, no. 5 (1985): 1144-1145, https://doi.org/10.2307/1241389.

[56] Ibid.

[57] U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Dietary Guidelines for Americans," accessed January 7, 2023, https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/about-dietary-guidelines/previous-editions.