In psychology class, each individual was required to research the claims regarding the ‘functional food’ status of an allegedly health-beneficial food substance. The food in which I examined was the grain-like food crop: Quinoa. Quinoa is a pseudo cereal substance that is very similar to grain crops like wheat, barley, and corn. Quinoa is a very trendy food right now, receiving a lot of attention from the media in regards to its new “superfood status”. The terms like “superfood” and “functional foods” are “umbrella terms” that are used to describe substances that have “health-promoting benefits” and/or “disease-preventing properties over and above their usual nutritional value” (Lunn, 2006). Quinoa’s complete amino acid track record and numerous amounts of health-beneficial phytochemicals gives it the right to be called a very effective “functional food”. Other defining qualities of “superfoods” can be foods that are “particularly appealing and energy dense… that is especially rich in phytochemicals” (Lunn, 2006). Knowing that Quinoa is filled with beneficial phytochemicals, it is also very much energy dense, considering that one cup can amount to approximately 220 calories. It is a food crop that has been found all throughout the Andes (South America) region, and it has provided “subsistence, nutrition, and medicine… for thousands of years” (Graf et al., 2015). Quinoa has been found to exert “significant, positive effects on metabolic, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal health in humans, which helps Quinoa to be “nutritional superior to traditional cereals and grains” (Johnson et al., 1993). Every piece of evidence supports the alleged claims of its superfood status… but one. There are claims that contradict Quinoa’s natural pesticide, saponins, as they are seen to be very “anti-nutritious” (Grant, 2013).

Saponins in quinoa are under a lot of questioning about their potential toxicity. Saponins are claimed to be the natural defense mechanism of quinoa, which “punch holes” in the gastric mucosal lining, causing “an autoimmune response and systemic inflammation” (Grant, 2013). However, Graf et al. (2015) includes saponins in their list of health beneficial list of phyotchemicals. There is also scientific evidence pertaining to the health promoting components of saponins, which “affect the immune system in ways that help to protect the human body against cancers, and also lower cholesterol levels” (Shi et al., 2004). This information supports the inclusion of saponins in the list of health-beneficial phytochemicals, but this is just the beginning of the controversial evidence discovered about quinoa’s saponin content. Overall, there is an overwhelming amount of negative evidence, as almost every article stated “the saponin content must be removed because they impart bitter taste and are considered to be a main anti nutrient of the quinoa. Saponins are known to cause breakdown in the human small intestine cell membranes and also negatively affect the assimilation of some proteins” (Gianna et al., 2012). There is no question that the saponins need to be removed from the quinoa (just to be safe), and the evidence regarding the positive affects of saponins makes the evidence holistically contentious. However, it is likely that the specific saponins in quinoa are a “deleterious” type of saponin, especially because they are “not normally absorbed from the gut” (Johnson et al.,1993).

No public media can delude the fact that quinoa is superb in its genetic diversity and its nutritional sustainability, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the quinoa needs to be mechanically abraded or washed in order to fulfill its healthy potential. It is not clear that all saponins are anti nutritious and harmful to humans, but it is clear that the deleterious type and excessive amount found on quinoa is toxic for the human body and must be removed.