REVIEW

Geophagia: why do humans

consume soil?
Conor Reilly and Jeya Henry
Oxford Brookes University, Oxford UK

Summary Geophagia is an ancient practice which is still widely seen in many parts of the
world, especially in traditional societies. Soils, selected for particular qualities, such
as flavour and plasticity, from carefully chosen sites, are consumed for a variety of
reasons, from religious to medicinal, as well as part of a regular diet. The practice
has been criticised as unhygienic because it can expose consumers to toxic soil con-
stituents, such as heavy metals or parasites. It has also been suggested that it causes
iron deficiency anaemia. However, there is evidence that soil can be a valuable
source of trade elements and nutrients. A number of investigations are currently
been carried out to resolve such conflicting views and to provide data on which an
objective judgement can be made regarding the clinical, medicinal and nutritional
implications of the practice.

Keywords: geophagia, iron deficiency anaemia, soil eating, soil parasites, toxic
elements, trace elements

Introduction Historical background

Geophagia, a name derived from the two Greek words,
ge- (earth) and phag- (eat), has been defined as the habit
of eating earth, including clay and other types of soil
(Halstead 1968). Although it has been practised for
thousands of years in many parts of the world, main-
stream nutrition has little interest in it. You will not find
the term listed in the index of most standard nutrition
textbooks. If it is mentioned at all in an undergraduate
course, it will probably be as an aberration of eating,
encountered on rare occasions, in so-called backward
communities. It will normally be discussed in the
context of pica, the infantile practice of ingesting all
sorts of materials, such as chips of paint from walls and
furniture, or the peculiar cravings of some pregnant
women for nonfood materials like coal or starch.
There have been references to soil eating in the scien-
tific literature for many hundreds of years. Danford, in
her comprehensive review (Danford 1982), identified its
recorded use from 10 bc (preparation of clay lozenges
for medicinal purposes on the Greek island of Lemnos)
through to a 1981 report on geophagia in the mentally
retarded. Most of the papers reviewed considered soil
ingestion to be an anthropological oddity with empha-
sis on its undesirability. In contrast to such dismissive
views, Gelfand (1945), who carried out extensive nutri-
tional and medical studies in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)
in the mid-20th Century, criticized those who proposed
that geophagia was merely a primitive habit bound to
disappear with increasing prosperity and better educa-
tion. He suggested that further research was necessary
to discover whether soil eating had a useful role to play
in nutrition.

Correspondence: Professor Conor Reilly, Nutrition and Food Geophagia yesterday and today
Science Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, Headington,
Oxford OX3 OBP, Tel.: + 44 186 5483283; fax: + 44 186 5484017 Some 70 years ago, Laufer (1930) reported that geopha-
E-mail: creilly @ brookes.ac.uk gia was to be observed on every continent where it

© 2000 British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 25, 141–144 141

142 Conor Reilly & Jeya Henry
was practised for a variety of reasons – religious and
magical, medicinal, in times of famine to alleviate the
pangs of hunger, to satisfy cravings of pregnant and lac-
tating women, and, not least, as part of a regular diet.
According to Simon (1998) geophagia is today practised
regularly by some African-American women in south-
ern US states. Clay, in the form of specially prepared
tablets, continues to be used for medicinal and other
purposes by rural inhabitants of parts of Mexico, Belize
and other Central American states (Hunter & de Kleine
1984). There are reports of similar practices in several
African countries. Vermeer has published a series of
studies on clay consumption by different tribal groups
in Nigeria and Ghana (Vermeer & Farrell 1985). Other
reports confirm that geophagia remains a normal and
widely accepted culinary practice among indigenous
people in many other parts of Africa, the Middle East,
India, China and Australia (Hunter 1973). It is possible
to purchase samples of soils, prepared for human con-
sumption in the form of small lozenges or rolls, in
local markets in Ghana, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia and
Figure 1 Soil samples from markets in Tanzania and Ghana.
elsewhere. Examples of such preparations are shown in
figure 1. According to the sellers, these products are
used both for medicinal purposes and as an accompa-
niment to ordinary foods (J Henry and C Reilly unpub-
lished observations).
Properties of geophagic soils
Types of soil consumed
As noted by Laufer (1930), not every kind of earth is
eaten, but only those kinds which recommend them-
selves through certain qualities such as colour, odour,
flavour, softness and plasticity. The material is normally
gathered from carefully chosen sites, such as pits, river-
banks or termite mounds and workings on tree trunks
or house walls. Various types of soil are used, from red
ferruginous lateritic materials to white clays, including
diatomaceous earth or kieselguhr. The soils may be
mixed with herbs and other plant material or with flour
or other foodstuffs. In some cases, after the soil is
shaped into small cakes or other shapes, it is baked over
a fire or dried in the sun. Sometimes the soil is ground
with water and made into a paste to be drunk or poured
over food.
Chemical composition
According to Smith et al. (1998), many soils eaten in
Uganda and elsewhere in Africa are typical tropical red
soils, usually rich in silica (SiO2). However, different
soils can show a wide range of elements. Those with a
high clay content are generally richer in magnesium, and
some of the clays are similar in composition to kaolin
or china clay, a natural form of the hydrated aluminium
silicate, Al2Si2O5(OH)4, used in certain commercial diar-
rhoea medications. Some differences have been noted by
Aufreiter et al. (1997) between the mineral contents of
termite mound soils and other soils. The former gener-
ally has higher levels of sodium and potassium, but
lower iron and aluminium contents. These authors
also note the presence of several nutritionally important
elements, including iron, chromium and iodine, in both
types of soil, which can also contain a number of less
common elements, including radioactive thorium and
uranium (Table 1).
Current concerns about geophagia
Total disapproval was expressed by Hooper & Mann
(1906) when they commented that among all the
curious perversions of taste existing in various parts of
© 2000 British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 25, 141–144
 Geophagia: why do humans consume soil? 143

Table 1 Elemental composition of geophageous material nutritionally desirable elements and that geophagia
(adapted from Aufreiter et al. 1997) may, in certain circumstances, be beneficial to human
health. Johns & Duquette (1991) have argued that soil
Element Quantity Soil Termite material1
consumption in humans may maintain bodily home-
Aluminium % 7.3 5.9 ostasis by correcting an imbalance or deficiency of
Calcium % 2.2 £0.9 minerals. This would be equivalent to the apparently
Iron % 3.3 1.6 instinctive behaviour noted in certain animals that
Potassium % 0.42 2.14 consume phosphorous- or calcium-rich soils when these
Magnesium % 0.55 0.10 minerals are not available in their normal diet. Aufre-
Silicon % 33 39 iter et al. (1997) assert that geophagial clay may provide
Sodium mg/kg 410 680
supplementary elements comparable to the commer-
Arsenic mg/kg 16.7 £8.5
Barium mg/kg 773 585 cially prepared medications used in industrialised coun-
Cerium mg/kg 117 158 tries. They argue that, in the absence of aid mediated by
Cobalt mg/kg 12.9 5.1 the institutions of modern society, geophagia can help
Chromium mg/kg 114 48.5 to alleviate some effects of chronic poor nutrition.
Copper mg/kg 507 £285 However, as has been pointed out by Johns &
Iodine mg/kg 7.7 £5.5 Duquette (1991), the presence of certain minerals, even
Manganese mg/kg 272 200
at high levels, in soils consumed by geophagists does not
Strontium mg/kg 3033 85
Thorium mg/kg 13.3 68.1
necessarily guarantee any nutritional or pharmacologi-
Uranium mg/kg 3.3 1.6 cal advantage. The actual outcome will depend on the
Vanadium mg/kg 97.7 29 mineralogy and the physicochemical properties of the
soils ingested. Diatomaceous soils, for instance, may
1
termite material comprises soil from termite mounds and other workings, enhance or inhibit iron absorption, depending largely
e.g. in house walls
on their cation exchange capacity (CEC), which is a
measure of their total exchangeable cation content. If
the world, there are few so peculiar or so apparently the CEC is low, the soil will not chelate and form an
unaccountable as that of eating earth. This type of insoluble complex with elemental iron and thus will
response is heard less often today, but concern is still have little effect on its absorption in humans. In con-
expressed about certain aspects of the practice. Prasad trast, even soils that are rich in iron, but with a high
et al. (1961) found an apparent association between CEC, may block iron absorption.
geophagia and both iron and zinc deficiency in young
Iranian men who displayed symptoms of dwarfism. It
Conclusions
is also claimed that ingested clay, by reducing the
bioavailability of iron, can cause anaemia. Others, There are still conflicting views about the significance of
however, believe that geophagia, rather than being geophagia for human health, despite the many studies
the cause of anaemia, is in fact one of its effects that have been carried out. The question, for instance,
(Lanzkowsky 1959). Toxic elements are sometimes of whether the practice contributes to iron-deficiency
ingested along with soil. Lead uptake from contami- anaemia or helps to alleviate the condition, is still far
nated soil, especially by children who practice pica, is from being resolved. Because iron deficiency remains a
known to occur. Other potentially toxic metals, includ- stubbornly persistent and serious health problem in
ing copper, can also be ingested in the same manner. many less developed countries, including some where
Smith et al. (1998) found that some soils consumed in geophagia is practised, the possible impact of soil con-
Uganda contained elevated levels of the rare earth sumption on iron and other trace-element nutrition
cerium which may be associated with a locally high level should not be ignored. Rather, it might be wise to adopt
of incidence of endomyocardial fibrosis. Parasitic infes- a strategy similar to that used by some workers in the
tations can also result from consumption of soils that area of traditional health practices, by applying pro-
have been contaminated with animal faecal matter. visional classifications of good, neutral or bad. This
Toxoplasmosis, roundworm and other parasites (Wong may lead to the acceptance that some soil consumption
et al. 1988) have been reported to be passed to soil- is definitely bad (it inhibits trace element absorption),
consuming humans in this way. some soil consumption is neutral (it neither inhibits nor
In contrast to such undesirable outcomes, others have enhances absorption), and some is good. However, even
noted that soils can also contain significant amounts of if the practice is judged to be good, i.e. that geophagial

© 2000 British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 25, 141–144

144 Conor Reilly & Jeya Henry
activity will supply nutritionally effective trace elements,
the possibility that the soil might be contaminated with
parasitic, heavy metal or bacterial components cannot
be overlooked.
It is essential when considering the significance of
geophagia for human health to realise that because soils
vary so widely in their nature and composition from
place to place, any investigation into the practice must
be site-specific. Moreover, because we are dealing with
a deep-rooted cultural phenomenon with its associated
social and even psychological underpinnings, we need
to understand the ways in which the practice is passed
from one generation to the next.
Geophagia is undoubtedly widely practised, and in
some places is a relatively commonplace part of normal
dietary habits, as is testified by many reviews and
reports in the scientific literature. However, many main-
stream researchers continue to regard it as a marginal
dietary oddity of little consequence to the nutritional
status of those who practice it. In the 1940s, Michael
Gelfand (1945) challenged those who held this negative
view when he urged that geophagia should be investi-
gated thoroughly. Now, more than half a century later,
this is being done by a number of investigators. It is to
be hoped that their efforts will supply a database on
the incidence of geophagia worldwide, as well as on
the chemical and physical nature of soils consumed by
geophagists, which will permit an objective judgement
to be made on the real clinical, medical and nutritional
implications of the practice.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Department for Industrial Development
(DFID) for a grant which enabled JH to make a field
trip to Tanzania.
References
Aufreiter S, Hancock RGV, Mahaney WC, Stambolic-Robb A &
Sammugadas K (1997) Geochemistry and mineralogy of soils
eaten by humans. International Journal of Food Sciences and
Nutrition 48: 293–305.
Danford DE, (1982) Pica and nutrition. Annual Review of
Nutrition 2: 303–32.
Gelfand M (1945) Geophagy and its relation to hook-worm disease.
East African Medical Journal 22: 98–103.
Halstead JA (1968) Geophagia in man: its nature and nutritional
effects. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 21: 1384–93.
Hooper D & Mann HH (1906) Earth-eating and the earth-eating
habit in India. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1: 249–70.
Hunter JM (1973) Geophagy in Africa and in the United States.
Geographical Review 63: 170–95.
Hunter JM & de Kleine R (1984) Geophagy in Central America.
Geographical Review 74: 157–69.
Johns T & Duquette M (1991) Detoxification and mineral supple-
mentation as a function of geophagy. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 53: 448–56.16.
Lanzkowsky P (1959) Investigation into the aetiology and treatment
of pica. Archives of Disease in Childhood 34: 140–8.
Laufer B, (1930) Geophagy. Publication No 280, Anthropological
Series 18 (2). Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL.
Prasad AS, Halstead JA & Nadima M (1961) Syndrome of iron
deficiency anaemia, hepatosplenomegaly, hypogonadism,
dwarfism and geophagia. American Journal of Medicine 31:
532–44.
Simon SL (1998) Soil ingestion by humans: a review of history,
data, and etiology with application to risk assessment of radioac-
tively contaminated soil. Health Physics 74: 647–72.
Smith B, Chenery SRN, Cook JM et al. (1998) Geochemical and
environmental factors controlling exposure to cerium and
magnesium in Uganda. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 65:
1–15.
Vermeer DE & Farrell RE Jr (1985) Nigerian geophagia clay: a tra-
ditional antidiarrheal pharmaceutical. Science 227: 634–6.
Wong MS, Bundy DAP & Golden MHN (1988) Quantitative
assessment of geophagous behaviour as a potential source of
exposure to gelhelminth infection. Transactions of the Royal
Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 82: 621–5.
© 2000 British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 25, 141–144