The Cost of Cutting Your Crusts

https://giphy.com/gifs/oprah-yW0PaUqJszRUk

I’ve eaten toast for breakfast or sandwiches for lunch since I discovered bread’s existence. Not once, in all these years, have I ever cut the crusts off a single slice. There’s a lot to be learned from those delightful, overlooked edges.

 

Bread Crust’s “Roll” Against Cancer?

The nutritional value of bread crust often goes unappreciated because not enough people take the time to recognize it. Bread crust actually contains compounds that have cancer-fighting potential. Researchers in Germany have found that the crust is rich in antioxidants (“Bread Crust And Stuffing Rich In Healthy Antioxidants,” 2002). The reason these compounds become concentrated in the crust is all in the baking.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-is-the-maillard-reaction/

Maillard Reaction: Delicious Chemistry

The crust forms as a result of the Maillard Reaction, in which amino acids and reducing sugars react from heat. What follows from these chemical reactions are the formation of enticing aroma components, the distinct brown surface, and an enhanced flavor. The interaction between the protein-bound amino acid L-lysine and reducing sugars at high temperatures is what gives us pronyl-lysine (“Maillard reaction,” n.d.).

Darker breads like pumpernickel and wheat contain higher amounts of these antioxidants than the typical white loaf (“Bread Crust And Stuffing Rich In Healthy Antioxidants,” 2002). However, burning your toast to a crisp won’t increase the levels because eventually, the Maillard reaction just becomes…well, burning.

Proving Bread Crust’s Worth

In the sourdough mixture used by the researchers, this novel antioxidant was 8 times more abundant in the crust than in the crumb! It wasn’t present in the flour mixture either, which suggests that the crust of the bread may provide stronger health benefits than any other part. 

Veronika Fasit, Ph.D., demonstrated that this antioxidant raised the level of phase II enzymes in human intestinal cells. Phase II enzymes defend against carcinogens and toxic chemicals (Zhang, 1970).

Annamalai University in India examined the effect pronyl-lysine had on the development of precancerous lesions in rats — eating bread seemed to reduce the development of these lesions by up to 72 percent (“Bread Crust And Stuffing Rich In Healthy Antioxidants,” 2002)!

Bread is also known as a great source of fiber, a nutrient important for digestion and for lowering the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers (“Dietary fiber: Essential for a healthy diet,” 2022). What isn’t as well known is that the crust is where most of the fiber accumulates!

https://dinnerthendessert.com/easy-cube-stuffing/

Thinking Outside the Loaf

These experiments don’t mean you can never cut your crusts again — it just means that you should put the scraps to good use. In fact, the antioxidant might be even more abundant when you make something with several small pieces. When you bake broken down bits in a stuffing or bread pudding, increased surface area means more reactions can occur!

 

 

Crust Me, It’s Delicious!

I’ve never understood the hate bread crusts received. To me, it felt completely undeserved when that’s where the best flavor is! A study with French baguettes even confirmed this.

Tasting the Difference From Crust to Crumb

This bread study evaluated the connection between the bread crumb vs. the crust on volatile release and aroma perception.

https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1018203-simple-crusty-bread

Volatiles are substances that evaporate easily and are released from food when changes take place. Processes like hydration with saliva and the increase in surface area are then sensed in the nose. These flavor volatiles give us a window into the sensory properties of food while it’s being eaten (Taylor, 1996).

Participants in the study consumed different samples of crusts and crumbs. The researchers measured their chewing behavior, perceptions, and volatile release. Results revealed that the volatiles, or markers, of the crust were released more quickly. This led to perception dynamics that differed from those of the crumb. There are several contributions to this observation. The crust’s firmness, which requires greater muscular activity to chew, released more volatiles. It’s placement on the surface and brittle structure lead to the crust being broken down more rapidly and thus a faster release of markers (Jourdren et al., 2017). 

Aroma perception had some pretty noticeable differences, too. When food is eaten, the compounds from the aroma released into the oral cavity, where it interacts with olfactory receptors to allow the consumer to perceive the dimensions of flavor of their food (Jourdren et al., 2017).

 

 

Slice of Life

https://lovefoodhatewaste.co.nz/ultimate-guide-childs-leftover-food/

Parents of crust-haters might be relieved that their child eats any part of the bread at all. As a former picky eater, I would never guilt anyone into eat a certain food. But at the same time, I’d never leave the crust out of the experience of a crunchy slice of toast or a hearty sandwich. A loaf of bread doesn’t just appear without it’s crust. Crust is evidence of the cascade of reactions that allowed it to form and protects the delicate crumb lying inside.

A Toast to the End of Bread Waste

A crust thrown away is a small representation of the 119 billion pounds of food wasted each year (“Food Waste and Food Rescue,” n.d.). Most of this waste is bread, with over 240 million slices tossed annually. Even if you are adamantly anti-crust, a gentle reminder: bread freezes well and stale bread can be transformed into croutons, breadcrumbs, bread pudding and plenty more. 

 

Resources

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.