do not agree with them. With all deference to the opinion of such
people, it may be stated that the difficulty often lies in the fact that
the grain was either not properly cooked, not properly eaten, or not
properly accompanied. A grain, simply because it is a grain, is by no
means warranted to faithfully fulfil its mission unless properly
treated. Like many another good thing excellent in itself, if found in
bad company, it is prone to create mischief, and in many cases the root
of the whole difficulty may be found in the excessive amount of sugar
used with the grain.

Sugar is not needed with grains to increase their alimentary value. The
starch which constitutes a large proportion of their food elements must
itself be converted into sugar by the digestive processes before
assimilation, hence the addition of cane sugar only increases the burden
of the digestive organs, for the pleasure of the palate. The Asiatics,
who subsist largely upon rice, use no sugar upon it, and why should it
be considered requisite for the enjoyment of wheat, rye, oatmeal,
barley, and other grains, any more than it is for our enjoyment of bread
or other articles made from these same grains? Undoubtedly the use of
grains would become more universal if they were served with less or no
sugar. The continued use of sugar upon grains has a tendency to cloy the
appetite, just as the constant use of cake or sweetened bread in the
place of ordinary bread would do. Plenty of nice, sweet cream or fruit
juice, is a sufficient dressing, and there are few persons who after a
short trial would not come to enjoy the grains without sugar, and would
then as soon think of dispensing with a meal altogether as to dispense
with the grains.

Even when served without sugar, the grains may not prove altogether
healthful unless they are properly eaten. Because they are made soft by