Comparative Review of Wheat Flour and Cassava Flour: Potential of Fortified Cassava Flour as a Sustainable Substitute
Jumoke Happiness Ayansola *
Department of Food Science, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria.
Roseline Oluwajomiloju Olateju
Department of Food Science, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.
Ibrahim Abu
Department of Biological Sciences, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois, United States.
Oluwabunmi John
Department of Food Technology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Teniola Atiwaye
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Wheat flour has exceptional bread-making functionality because hydrated gluten proteins form a cohesive, extensible gas-retaining network, but dependence on wheat can create economic and supply vulnerabilities in tropical regions where cassava is widely grown. Cassava flour offers high starch yield, agronomic resilience and opportunities for local value addition, yet conventional root flour is intrinsically low in protein and several micronutrients, lacks gluten, and requires effective control of cyanogenic compounds. This critical narrative review compares wheat flour and cassava flour and evaluates whether fortified cassava flour can function as a nutritionally adequate and environmentally defensible substitute. Literature published from January 2000 to 17 July 2026 was selected from multidisciplinary, agricultural, food-science and biomedical scholarly sources, with older standards and foundational evidence retained when necessary. The evidence indicates that cassava flour is not a universal drop-in replacement for wheat flour. In yeast-leavened bread, substitution commonly weakens dough rheology and loaf structure as wheat is displaced, although cassava variety, particle properties, heat-moisture treatment, fermentation, hydrocolloids and added gluten can materially alter performance. Nutritional fortification with soybean, mushroom or leafy-vegetable ingredients can raise protein or micronutrient density, while provitamin A biofortified cassava has human efficacy evidence for improving vitamin A status. These strategies, however, address different limitations and should not be treated as interchangeable. Sustainability claims are similarly conditional: cassava can support climate resilience, local sourcing and import substitution, but drying energy, transport of perishable roots, cultivation practices and processing infrastructure can dominate environmental performance. The most defensible pathway is therefore targeted, standards-based substitution in products and regions where cassava has a comparative agronomic or economic advantage, combined with nutrient fortification, cyanide control, functionality optimisation and life-cycle assessment. Fortified cassava flour has substantial potential as a partial wheat substitute and, in selected product categories, as a wheat-free base, but sustainability and nutritional adequacy must be demonstrated at the formulation and supply-chain levels rather than assumed from crop identity alone.
Keywords: Cassava flour, composite flour, food fortification, high-quality cassava flour, bread quality, biofortification, life-cycle assessment, wheat substitution