Wes Peterson wrote:
>
> Does anyone here know if raw grains are a healthful food to eat?

I strongly believe that they are not.  I base this belief mostly
on two arguments: 1) in their original state, most grains are hard,
spikey, nasty little plants that don't exactly make a person's
mouth water, and 2) there is much evidence linking grains to
various diseases (MS, celiac, arthritis, etc.) and I think it
unlikely that such a link only exists for cooked grains.

> However, is this also the case to any degree with raw soaked
> grains?  ...Are grains a natural food for us?

"Natural" is such a tricky word, isn't it?  Is is natural to soak
grains at all?  Is it natural to sprout?  One could take the side
that since we have brains that could think of these things, and
since our brains are a natural part of us, then these things are
natural.  Maybe, but then it isn't much of a leap to go from there
to saying that rayon and nuclear power plants are natural for the
same reasons.  My personal opinion on the matter is pretty much in
line with that of the anopsological folks -- the more you have to
mess with it to make it palatable, the less likely you should be
eating it in the first place.  The simple fact that there are
vitamins and minerals in grains is meaningless, especially when you
consider that hemlock has plenty of vitamins and minerals too! :D

Carol