“Why Not Eat Insects?” inquires a short book, really a pamphlet, first published in London in 1885. Working against the common perception of bugs as pests—at best, an absurdly obvious nonfood, and at worst, a toxin—the author, Vincent M. Holt (who provided no autobiographical details that might establish his credentials) aimed at reversing his readers’ general disdain for insects as low and troublesome forms of being, as well as the specificWestern objection to entomophagy. Cockchafers, caterpillars, and grubs, he asserted in his opening pages, were “clean, palatable, and wholesome” foods. Indeed, as eaters, these insects were more discerning “than ourselves.” It followed, therefore, that eating insects was not a form of pica (themental and physiological disorder of consuming nonfood items); rather, refusing to eat them was merely a provincial prejudice of Europeans, born of ignorance about the consumption of insects, a practice Holt assured his readers was common around the world. We pose a variant of Holt’s deceptively simple question by bringing to the fore the underlying provocation in his manifesto and critique: why not study food? Why hasn’t food, or the knowledge and practices that surround its production, preparation, distribution, and ingestion, mattered much to historians of science, medicine, and technology? Arguably, the only universal historical constant of human existence (besides death and taxes) is the need to eat and drink. Yet, claims and practices surrounding food and beverages varywidely across time and space. The historicity of food embraces notmerely geographic, economic, and political pressures, but also a wide range of claims—theological, legal, medical, traditional—that shapewhat can, should, orwill be consumed by any person or society. Food has long been an object of serious study across the humanities and social

中文翻译：

---

论历史食虫的美德

“为什么不吃昆虫？” 询问一本短书，实际上是一本小册子，于 1885 年首次在伦敦出版。 反对将虫子视为害虫的普遍看法 - 充其量是一种明显荒谬的非食物，最坏的情况是一种毒素 - 作者，Vincent M. Holt（谁没有提供可以证明他的资格的自传细节）旨在扭转读者对昆虫的普遍蔑视，认为昆虫是低等和麻烦的存在形式，以及西方对昆虫的具体反对。他在开篇中声称，金龟子、毛毛虫和蛴螬是“干净、可口且有益健康”的食物。事实上，作为食客，这些昆虫“比我们自己”更敏锐。因此，由此得出结论，吃昆虫不是异食癖（食用非食物的精神和生理障碍）；相当，拒绝食用它们只是欧洲人的一种地方偏见，源于对食用昆虫的无知，霍尔特向他的读者保证，这种做法在全世界都很普遍。我们提出了霍尔特看似简单的问题的变体，将他的宣言和批评中的潜在挑衅放在首位：为什么不研究食物？为什么食物，或者围绕其生产、制备、分配和摄取的知识和实践，对科学、医学和技术历史学家来说不是很重要？可以说，人类生存的唯一普遍历史常数（除了死亡和税收）是吃喝的需要。然而，围绕食品和饮料的主张和做法因时间和空间而异。食物的历史性不仅仅包含地理、经济和政治压力，还有各种各样的主张——神学的、法律的、医学的、传统的——塑造了任何人或社会可以、应该或将消费的东西。长期以来，食品一直是人文和社会学科认真研究的对象。