With other vastly superior sources of nutrition available and few redeeming qualities, grains (particularly those high in gluten and phytates) certainly are undeserving of their current status as an essential part of a “healthy diet.”
--- I understand that the part "few redeeming qualities" means that they have not many qualities? Does it refer to the grains? So grains don't have many qualities and because there are better sources of nutrition, grains should not be an essential part of a healthy diet? Is it what it is saying?
The sentence could have been written better. The two introductory phrases do not work together. The writer overworked "with", trying to use it in two different senses at the same time.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
The sentence could have been written better. The two introductory phrases do not work together. The writer overworked "with", trying to use it in two different senses at the same time. Your interpretation is essentially correct, but you are ignoring the word "redeeming". The grains have few good qualities that would compensate for their bad qualities.
NewguestDoes it refer to the grains?
Yes.
NewguestI understand that the part "few redeeming qualities" means that they have not many qualities?
They have many negatives and don't have the number of advantages that would compensate for or offset the disadvantages.