Talk:Geophagy

southeastern United States
In the southeastern United States especially tasty dirt (usually a chalky dirt with a certain flavor) is sold in local stores or sent to friends and family who are no longer living near the source of this dirt.

Is this true? Fascinating!

Are such soils available for purchase online anywhere? About how much would a sack of dirt for human consumption run? Can I perhaps order custom blends of soil if I prefer my dirt with less clay, more loam, and at least one whole earthworm in each cup of soil? Could I mix soil and milk in my blender for a tasty mudshake? Or perhaps some hot water for a good ol' cup of muddy water?


 * In case you were serious, you can buy clay to eat, try a search for 'bentonite clay'.

And kudos for teaching the new word, by the way. Next time someone bothers me, I'll just tell them "Oh, go geophage!" Garrett Albright 04:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But is it true? About stores in the southeast selling particular local soil specifically for eating? After two years in the article without a citation, and after having grown up in the southeast without noticing soil-for-eating on store shelves (can't say I was looking, though), I'm starting to doubt it. Anyone have a source for this? Allen 05:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No sources after over a year of discussion, so I'm taking it out. --Allen 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * there are some references in the human geophagy scientific literature which refer to people shipping highly sought after soils from the south to the Chicago area after relatives and friends moved north and couldn't find the good stuff up there. i've never heard of people selling it locally in the southeast of the USA, but it wouldn't surprise me.Jamiegilardi 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

While speaking of the Southeastern United States, would it not be worthwhile to refer to the 2004 Indiana U. Press book "Dixie's Forgotten People" [the South's Poor Whites ]by J. Wayne Flynt [reprint of 1979], which sights widespread clay eating among these people before, and long after the Civil War? [real red clay, as well perhaps as kaolin]. Also mentioned is a modern reference to Duke Medical Center.98.94.16.7 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Done! --Dyuku (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

North Korea?
I have read about people eating clay in North Korea, presumably because of malnutrition. Is this common during famine conditions in other places? --Reuben 21:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are reports of this in Africa where people not only seek out wild plants which they wouldn't normally eat during a famine, but also that they eat more soil as part of the same process. One could paint an adaptive story around this, but I don't think there's much direct evidence for a clean cause and effect.


 * That said, rats respond to nausea by eating clay in such a predictable way that the amount of clay consumed has been used as a direct measure of nausea. So facultative and adaptive geophagy is something we should really expect in highly sophisticated omnivores, including human, rather than to expect the opposite.Jamiegilardi 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Method?
In this novel geophagy is mentioned as a method for suicide. It is said, that this was common among African American slaves. Anyone know anything about this? gbrandt 11:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the pica literature, you'll find comments like this. However, the assumption in the geophagy literature is that adaptive geophagy came to the USA from Africa and so most of what was exhibited by slaves here was more likley associated with nausea, pregnancy, gastric discomfort, or all of the above.  It's a pretty absurd way to try to kill yourself, after all, but surely less plausible things have happend in those extreme times.Jamiegilardi 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I once read about a killing method where the victims were tied by rope to a tree, and forced to run themselves to death around it. It seems such nonphysiological killing methods are more of an urban legend kind than true. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed split
I say we should have two separate articles; one for the animal feeding behaviour, and another for the human pica (disorder). - Anxietycello (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's of course a good idea. No else have opinionated for abt. 5½ month, so: split, please!. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues
Some sentences like "In order for geophagy to remain a part of American culture, more effective marketing strategies need to be implemented that fit into modern American culture.[11]" definitely sound pro-geophagy, in more than a minor way. Definitely needs NPOV cleanup. --Fshy (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The entire sections on Geophagy in the US and the cultural issues below it, including the remark that Western Culture conninues Geophagy through vitamins and minerals is just bizarre (It has this wierd "What's wrong with Western Culture? Dirt-eating too good for you?" vibe). It shows a strong pro-geophagy slant, and seems patronizingly dismissive of Western Culture's aversion to eating dirt, up to the point of downplaying the harmful side effects of geophagy and blaming it on racism and classism, and bringing in pseudoscientific near-Freudian symbolism. It sounds more like a pamphlet than an encyclopedia article. Also, it has only one source, Henry and Kwong, "Why is geophagy treated like dirt?", which I can't find anywhere. 72.129.250.48 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

''Why isn't this bacteria mentioned? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_cereus This is a key form of food poisoning that's taught in food industry OHS, especially in regard to washing root vegetables- surprised no-one has mentioned it. Also the entire article feels very weird and positively biased, more like a creepy personal page than an encyclopedia article.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.239.233 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Added an NPOV tag to the article for the aforementioned reasons--Vertigo Acid (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The article also very broadly seperates "Western" and "non-Western" cultures. Do ALL the many non-Western cultures feature dirt-eating? Really?38.98.198.33 (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Article has a serious "oh, but it's only a THEORY" theme going on re: germ theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.194.234 (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only does this article seem to be pro-geophagy, and offers suggestions on how to make it more popular in "Western cultures", but its overall structure seems as if someone posted their a school essay; a persuasive essay, no less. It screams at me due to the awkward MLA/Wiki hybrid citation style, not to mention all the "this is how we can promote geophagy" and whatnot.  I think I will tag it on that.  &mdash;Onore Baka Sama(speak 15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure this article has a bit of bias. I don't like it myself. So go and change those bits!--Dyuku (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain
I've heard that in 17th-century Spain it was fashionable for high-society ladies to drink from búcaros, jars of odorous clay and to eat the clay itself to whiten their skins. --Error (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

General reorganisation of the article
I have added some new sections, some new material, and generally reorganized the article. I also reduced the front section (as per posted request), and moved that material elsewhere. I avoided cutting anything out.

The article still remains a bit repetitious, and needs some tightening. But now the general structure is more logical and coherent.

The monograph by Laufer,

remains an excellent source of anthropological and historical evidence on Geophagy. A lot more material can be quoted from there.

There are also huge amounts of material on animal geophagy that can be added (I'll try to add some later, myself).

As for splitting the article, it can be easily done, but first more evidence needs to be added for animal geophagy.

Also, some more can be added on different types of earths being consumed (Laufer is good for that evidence).

More help is needed for this article!

Cheers -- Dyuku (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mud cake
Mudcake and Mud cake both redirect here and I'm not sure that's such a good idea. Mud cake can be a synonym for Mud pie or just a simple chocolate cake, none of which have anything to do with Geophagy... and somehow I imagine that largely, people will expect to find information on the non-geophagy variant? But I really don't know. What is more wide-spread? -pinkgothic (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Amen. I was looking for an article about the australian dessert, but was redirected to this. 95.96.74.161 (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be an article on the Australian dessert (or I have yet to find it), but I went ahead and made a disambiguation page out of Mud cake and turned Mudcake into a redirect to that. -pinkgothic (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Contaminated Sikor Clay
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/news_events/news/current/110131_Sikor.jsp reports on research at De Montfort University, Leicester, into baked clay imported for geophagy. It found the clay to be highly contaminated and highlights the risks of eating material of unknown composition.Gowervale (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Allen Domenico (of Human Geography course backgrounds)
Does anyone know what this refers to. Have not been able to find any reference elsewhere. It was included as a minor edit but does not meet the criteria on the How to Edit a Page page. Afrocatz, I couldn't find a way to contact you direct to let you know. Gowervale (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Geophagy in Animals
Geophagic soils (often found in “salt licks”) vary in composition, but are generally high in clay content (and low in much coarser sand). These soils are often red due to Fe2+ changing to Fe3+. The soils are generally older and thus more eroded. Animals do not seem to consume topsoil. It must also be noted that such soils have a biotic component, as they contain viruses, bacteria and fungi. Geophagy occurs widely and variably in the animal kingdom. The habit can be found in animals with diverse dietary patterns (carnivores, omnivores, herbivores) and of diverse phylogenetic clades (parrots and humans are both relatively well studied ‘practitioners’ of geophagy). The hypotheses for the presence of geophagy in animals are numerous: mechanical enhancement of digestion, acid buffering capacity, mineral supplementation, adsorption of dietary toxins, and gastrointestinal cytoprotection (Duffey,et al 1999)[1]. Evidence has been found to support all or most of these postulates, though studies are still relatively few, and the focus has been primarily set on mammalian geophagy (though there has been an apparent increase in the study of avian geophagy, especially among parrots).

Hypotheses
One of the most popular explanations for geophagy in animals is that the consumption of clay and soil provides nutritional benefits. Some macronutrients present in soil include nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium and potassium, which are all essential for life. These nutrients have a high concentration in areas of the tropical rainforest called mineral licks. Species such as Tapirs and bats visit these licks to consume soil that is extremely rich in nutrients like sodium, calcium and zinc. These licks are an easy way of obtaining nutrients needed for survival without expending energy by looking for to hunting food. Animals tend to revisit the same licks. Despite the designation “salt lick” geophagic soil patches are not simply (or rather, singularly) a means for animals to bolster dietary sodium. Some cases even indicate that mineral supplementation is an unimportant (or secondarily important) reason for animal visitation of a salt lick. One study shows that in some kinds of parrots the salt licks visited show little in the way of mineral supplements (mineral levels are not significantly higher than the levels found in typical parrot diet) or in ability to buffer. Also, the sodium concentration was too low for detection by parrots. Instead the soil seemed to valuable for its cation exchange capabilities. This capability allows for the adsorption of secondary plants compounds and thus can act to remove potential toxins consumed by the bird (Duffey et al 1999). Several studies corroborate this (Klaus et al 1998)[2] but the traits found in these parrots and their salt licks are not universal among all animals or even among all parrots. Large mammals in Tanzania, for example, use salt licks in part for sodium but perhaps more importantly for other supplementary minerals (molibdinum, selenium, cobalt) (Mills et al 2007)[3]. Lick locations have been found to correspond to the dietary deficiencies of local populations (Valdes-Pena 20080[4]. Variation has also been found to exist in use of varying salt licks by different members of an animal population, based on such factors as age and gender. For example, female baboons will often consume soils from iron rich licks which are typically ignored by other baboons, when that female is pregnant (Pebsworth et al 2012)[5]. Balancing pH in the stomach is another hypothesis behind soil consumption in animals. The levels of soil acidity can vary from one area to another and animals will travel to various environments to visit these licks. Recent studies to support this hypothesis were done on mammals such as masked titi monkeys and whether their consumption of soil helped to level out internal pH (2). Similarities in consumed ant mound soil indicate this may not be the (at least sole) purpose of geophagy in these animals.

Geography and Characteristics
Geophagy has been observed in a vast and diverse array of geographical areas across the globe. Major known mineral licks are found in humid forests of western Amazonia .Specific regions of research and observational study include but are not limited to southern Peru, the southeastern Colombian Amazon and multiple sites throughout Brazil. The origins and features of mineral licks vary around the world because of different properties found in the different soils. Generally the licks contain higher concentrations of many minerals including sodium, magnesium, phosphate, boron, calcium and sulfur. The pH of these licks usually range from 7 to 8, which is higher than the average non-lick soils that remain at a pH of 3.5 to 5. While the nutrients and their chemical composition that make up the mineral lick are an important factor in finding these mineral licks the actually geographical features are also a clue on where mineral licks will be located. For instance in areas of high rainfall mineral licks are less likely to be found because of increased soil leeching. Licks have been classified based on their location. These include upland licks, low bajjial licks, high bajial licks and riverbank licks. Upland licks are found relatively close to the headwater of creeks and can be as far as 5,400-meter away from the riverbank and further into the upland forest. The elevation of the upland licks ranged from 92 to 116 meters. Low bajial licks are located about 400 meters away from the riverbank low flooded plains where there is little drainage. They are only present during the drier months because on the days of heavy rain a lot of the elements become leeched. On the other hand High bajial licks are established in areas much closer to the riverbank, about 161 meters. They are flooded for short periods of times because of their vicinity to the river. Riverbank licks are more difficult to observe and fine because they spend a majority of the year underwater but mineral licks are still present during certain times of the year. Also another feature that points to a mineral lick friendly environment is very little or scattered vegetation. Mineral licks will be found in areas where there are few shrubs or ferns and palms.

Examples in the Animal Kingdom
There have been many documentations of geophagy amongst New World Monkeys. Most of the behavior recorded has been with Howler monkeys (genus Alouatta) in the eastern Brazilian Amazonia. They were seen to ingest soils enriched with Ca, Na and organic carbon rather than just usual soils on the forest floor. They found that the feeding habitats of the howler monkeys on soils and mineral licks increased at the transitions between the wet to dry seasons. This may be due to a peak in the nutrients or maybe even a peak in nutritional requirement.[6] Though primarily studied in mammals, geophagy in birds has increasingly become the focus of research. For example, numerous New Guinea birds have been documented practicing geophagy. Different species of parrots and pigeons are amongst the types of birds that have been seen to eat soil in areas where landslides have occurred recently. These landslides bring up nutrients that may have been dug under other layers making them difficult to get to but once they are uncovered it is very beneficial to these birds. Different times of the day attract different species such as parrots visiting early in the morning compared to some pigeons later at night. The soil in this area was tested to contain over fourteen minerals which are needed for many of these species survival. There was a study done in Peru on Amazon rainforest parrots. Peruvian parrot species are a hot tourist attraction throughout the year. These parrots have a very particular taste in dirt and were found to be consuming the dirt along the bank of the Manu River in an area only one meter in width. Because this area is out of the way, there clearly must have been a motive for these parrots to stray away from the group. Whether it was due to specific nutrients present in these soils or for some other source needed for the bird to thrive. Some researchers have suggested the purpose of these birds consuming soil is based on the fact that they don't posses teeth and can grind up the soil in their gizzards. If there are nutrients that are needed in the soil, their bodies are equipped to absorb those nutrients once they have been separated from the soil. [7]

Move
At Category:Pica (disorder), this is the only article listed as a phagy rather than a phagia. Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, I propose to move this article to Geophagia. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)