In the middle of the 19th century, time and with it life were removed from food.
Until then, the processing of grains and legumes was a local, artisanal process. Food was a regional fresh product.
This change affected flour, rice, corn, millet, oats and legumes, basically all foods.
Grains and legumes stand out here in particular because they are the staple foods of practically all people in sedentary cultures.
This change took place, with the exception of millet, in the second half of the 19th century.

The historical why

#

The development was a response to the logistical challenges of industrialization. Grain had to be made shelf-stable in order to feed people in rapidly growing cities. From today’s perspective, the fact that what was biologically valuable for humans fell by the wayside was a biological amputation that could be felt at the time but could neither be measured nor fully understood. The first vitamin was only discovered in 1897, 37 years after the switch to degerminated flours and polished rice.
That is a generation later!
With the level of knowledge at the time, the solutions were brilliantly logical!

What was changed and when?

#

• Flour (1840 – 1870)
  With the invention of the roller mill (1840) and the sifting machine (1860), it became possible to remove the germ from the flour. Around 1870, this process became the worldwide industrial standard. A second significant change took place in the course of the “Green Revolution”.

• Rice (1860 – 1890)
  With the invention of the steam-powered mechanical peeling mill, it became possible to completely remove the silver skin and the germ. This process also became the worldwide industrial standard around 1870.

• Oats (1875 – 1900)
  The (1877) patented process for the large-scale industrial production of oat flakes. This process is based on the possibility of having large quantities of steam available to kiln-dry the grain, a form of heat stabilization.

• Corn (1900 – 1910)
  Although experiments with degermination were already being carried out at the end of the 19th century, the patent of the Beall Degerminator (1901) marked the decisive turning point. This machine made it possible to mechanically remove the fatty germ on an industrial scale. From around 1910, degerminated cornmeal was the norm in trade.

• Millet (1900 – 1930)
  Since the small germ cannot be separated mechanically, the industry chose the path of heat stabilization in the early 20th century.

• Legumes (1860 – Today)
  With the advent of the tin can and industrial steam cooking, the millennia-old process of activation (soaking and sprouting) was skipped. Beans and lentils were now cooked and sterilized directly under pressure. The result: The enzymes responsible for breaking down anti-nutrients (such as phytic acid, lectins) and the pre-digestion of proteins are killed before they can start their work.
  The can became the coffin of enzymatic vitality.

• Vegetable fats & oils (1869 – 1910)
  In parallel with the degermination of grain, the industry developed processes to extract oils chemically rather than just pressing them mechanically.

  • 1870s: The introduction of solvent extraction using hexane made it possible to dissolve even the last residue of fat from seeds, but left behind a rather toxic, highly processed product.
  • 1900 – 1910: The invention of hardening (hydrogenation) by Wilhelm Normann (patent 1902) marks the maximum credible accident for cellular communication. For the first time, liquid vegetable oils could be transformed into spreadable fats (margarine). This creates trans-fatty acids, which are incorporated into our cell membranes and nerve sheaths like “false building blocks”.

Co-factors

#

• Reduction of particle size
  Only the roller mill makes it possible to produce super-fine flour; millstones are not nearly as well suited for this or, to put it another way, millstones work more coarsely. Both work too hot. This extreme fineness of modern flours contradicts our anatomy. If evolution had wanted us to absorb dust-fine energy without resistance, we would have a rasping tongue like a snail. But we have teeth and teeth, like our intestines, demand structure and resistance. Only coarse grinding combined with chewing allows the salivary enzymes to work.

• Sugar (1850 – 1890)
  With the perfection of the beet sugar refinery (Solvay process and vacuum boiling), isolated sucrose changed from a luxury good to a cheap mass raw material. Sugar became the energetic “propellant” for the now enzyme-free grain products. The result: A systemic glycation (saccharification) of the connective tissue and the nerve pathways, which could proceed unhindered without the enzymatic brakes of the germ.

• Salt (1880 – 1910)
  Due to the rise of the chemical heavy industry, sodium chloride was needed in gigantic quantities as a high-purity industrial raw material; approx. 98% of salt production goes into industry. This “starting product” of chemistry replaced holistic crystal or sea salt for humans. Chemically pure NaCl, wrongly called table salt, is a heavy burden for humans compared to holistic crystal or sea salt. The introduction of anti-caking agents and the removal of accompanying minerals led to a change in the bio-electrical cell voltage.

• Milk from 1890: Pasteurization: Thermal inactivation of germs and also enzymes accompanied by protein changes. Homogenization from 1920, which serves to prevent natural creaming through mechanical destruction of the fat structure, and from 1960 ultra-high temperature processing (UHT milk), which makes maximum denaturation shelf-stable for months.

• Biocides (from 1940)
  The nerve gas legacy: Nerve gas became insecticides, defoliants became herbicides.
  This development has two prominent historical points. The first in the late 1940s when these substances began to be diverted on a massive scale to agriculture superficially. The second in the course of the “Green Revolution”.

• Animal husbandry (from 1940)
  The denaturation of human food was also implemented in animal husbandry, which has led to us consuming milk, eggs and meat from sick animals. Interestingly, a counter-trend can already be observed here. Slowly, but at least. Approx. 70% of global agricultural land is used for livestock farming, about 33% of the world’s grain harvest ends up directly in the feed trough, and for soy, it is even more than 75%

Conclusion of the first change

#

The Industrial Revolution redefined food. The goal was no longer living freshness but shelf life for metropolitan areas and world trade. For this it was necessary to stop the biological activity of the food, for which the germs were removed and the enzymes were killed.

The innovation of the 19th century was to make “dead” staple foods the global standard and to continue using the names of the former foods unchanged.

The solution approach of modernity

#

Due to the population explosion in the Western world after the Second World War (1940: 2.30 billion, 1950: 2.52 billion, 1960: 3.02 billion, 1970: 3.70 billion) and better medical care with constant birth rates in the “third world”, the issue of hunger was once again present. The next solution approach consisted not in changing the processing but in increasing the yield of agricultural production per hectare.
This phase, which began around 1960, was called The “Green” Revolution. For this purpose, traditional varieties were transformed into new high-performance varieties through targeted genome manipulations for more yield and improved baking properties … “bred” is the wrong word here. Unfortunately, they also brought about a significant change in the immunoreactive protein structures (especially α-gliadin).
This development can be roughly divided into three further phases:

• 1970 – 1990: Yield maximization: The new focus was on adaptation to artificial fertilizers and pesticides. The protein structures became increasingly “harder” and industrially more resilient.
• 1990 – 2010: “Baking performance”: In this phase, the genome was specifically trimmed so as not to tear in industrial kneading machines. The α-gliadin components became increasingly dominant through molecular selection. These are exactly the proteins that trigger the strongest zonulin reaction today.
• 2010 – Today: Hybrid and design breeding: This phase is about extreme resistance and speed.
  This modern wheat is biologically far removed from what our ancestors ate 100 years ago.

These yield-optimized grain varieties have a serious immune deficiency which makes the massive use of pesticides absolutely necessary. Without this chemical protective shield, the unstable grain would have immediately succumbed to the pressure of nature in the field. From the 1960s onwards, an extremely destructive change took place in agriculture because biocides were no longer just sprayed on superficially, but became systemic active ingredients part of the entire water cycle and the plant itself. They penetrate into the sap stream via the roots and can therefore no longer be washed off – they have thus become an integral part of the food chain.
In addition, aggressive defense proteins (so-called ATIs) were bred directly into the grain as a replacement for the lost natural resistance. These act like a built-in pesticide against insects, but today, together with the changed gluten structures, they chronically irritate the intestines of many people. The result is a burden that goes far beyond what our digestive system should or could process evolutionarily.

The timeline of specialization

#

An equally essential turning point in the problem thinking of this time is the movement away from the whole towards the analytical consideration of the detail. This change can again be divided into three stages.

• The philosophical germ (approx. 1830–1850)

  • Auguste Comte & Positivism: Only what was measurable, weighable and isolable counted. “The whole” became unscientific and vague.
  • Rudolf Virchow (Cellular Pathology, 1858): He stipulated that diseases arise in the individual cell, which represents the moment in which the perspective is narrowed from the “totality of the body” to the microscopic detail.

• The industrial setting of the course (1860–1880)
  Specialization was necessary for the factory. A miller only needed to know how to operate a roller mill, not how grain functions. Science followed this model by concentrating on individual bacteria instead of investigating general health.
  This is the time of the passionate dispute between Louis Pasteur & Antoine Béchamp.
  Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) focused on the elimination of the external enemy through sterilization and thus the killing of pathogens in order to achieve safety through purity.
  Antoine Béchamp (1816–1908) saw the solution in the care of the inner milieu, since a body strengthened by nutrient density and vitality offers no breeding ground for germs & bacteria.
  Béchamp lived to be 92 years old, Pasteur died at 72. Béchamp not only outlived his opponent by 13 years, but also reached a truly biblical age for the time, even though he fought against the scientific mainstream throughout his life.
  Who was right?
  Both!

• The Flexner Report (1910) - The lid of Pandora’s box is banned
  Rockefeller and Carnegie, both enthusiastic standardizers with a mechanistic view of the world and humanity, commissioned the educator, not physician Abraham Flexner (1866–1959) to restructure medical education. While Rockefeller secured the petrochemical basis for the new pharmacology, Carnegie provided the structural model of industrial efficiency. The result was that everything holistic, naturopathic and milieu-based was branded as “unscientific” and financially dried up. Medicine was broken down into hundreds of isolated specialist areas; the cardiologist no longer speaks to the gastroenterologist. The fact that the lymph on the neck is directly connected to the digestion in the intestine and thus to the chewing of food seems absurd in this mechanistic world view, nevertheless it is biological reality.

Psychological Backgrounds of the Change

#

While roller mills, chemical extraction, etc., were purely logistical and economic responses, psychological factors come into play with Pasteur’s thesis and, above all, the Flexner Report.

Through Pasteur’s thesis, the microbe becomes the aggressor and the human becomes the victim. This is an extremely convenient but also disempowering worldview that does not invite self-responsibility; on the contrary. If the blame lies on the outside, then the solution also lies on the outside, and disinfection, medication, and vaccinations become the sole solutions. The cultivation of the inner milieu becomes seemingly irrelevant because one is only occupied with killing the “external enemies.” Culturally, this finds fertile ground in superficially understood religious thinking: God vs. the Devil. Pasteur’s thesis is correct but too narrow; only in combination with Béchamp’s thesis does it become a holistic approach.

The Flexner Report as Neurotic Compensation
William “Devil Bill” Avery Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller’s father, was a con artist, bigamist, and “snake oil salesman.” He lived for decades under the name Dr. William Levingston, traveling around as a botanical physician and selling worthless tinctures as miracle cures for cancer for the then-horrendous price of $25 per treatment (equivalent to about $625 today). After John D. Rockefeller became the richest and most hated monopolist in the world, Joseph Pulitzer, the famous publisher and namesake of the well-known journalism prize, put a bounty of $8,000 (well over $200,000 in today’s purchasing power) on information regarding the whereabouts of John D. Rockefeller’s father around the year 1901.

“Devil Bill” lived secretly with a second wife while still officially married to John’s mother and died in 1906 in Freeport, Illinois. He was buried in an unmarked grave as “William Levingston” at the expense of his second wife.
With this background, the Flexner Report—initiated by John D. Rockefeller, which wiped out natural healing in favor of pharmaceutical chemistry—appears in a new light. It was not an act of philanthropy, but an attempt to whitewash the stain of the “snake oil father” through a scientific but equally profit-oriented medicine. The father complex of a billionaire became the foundation of our current health policy, and the son became the mirror image of his father.

Summary of the Changes

#

While the industrialization of food adversely altered both human “hardware” and nature, the Flexner Report destroyed the knowledge of how to repair them. As of 2026, ~8.20 billion people live on the planet, the vast majority of whom are affected by these consequences. Along with the disappearance of wholeness from food, it also disappeared from Western thought and modern medicine. The naming of the new food qualities was retained. Refined salt remained “salt,” degerminated flour remained “flour,” heat-stabilized whole-grain flour remained “whole-grain flour,” etc.—linguistic differentiation was nipped in the bud.

This should have made the cause of the change fundamentally understandable.
We can therefore turn to the actual problem or, if interested, first to flour.