There will always be some cultures that are different from the norm. 100% uniformity in human culture is very rare.
But look across the globe: I would posit that a large percentage of humans have a taboo against insect consumption.
If there are any counter examples that you can state from the world one must analyze how numerically large that community is within that country and the world.
In other words, don't count the number of cultures/communities that are OK with insect consumption, count the population of the cultures/communities that are OK with insect consumption.
I don't think taboos are in anyway useful in determining health implications. For example, are dogs or horses in any way materially worse than cows or sheep for people to eat? Why are the French happy to eat frogs and snails?
I'm reasonably certain the idea of certain food being taboo is almost completely due to cultural norms.
Dogs and horses are not ruminants, therefore they are more likely to carry parasites that are harmful to humans. Cows and sheep are both ruminants. So yes, there is a difference beyond cultural preferences. Or I should say, cultural preferences are not just arbitrary.
Human societies have developed over the years with trial and error. Taboos against a food can have a positive correlation with negative health outcomes when consuming that food.
So just because there is a taboo against a food group does not mean that it will definitely be bad for you. There is just a positive probability that it could be.
Taboos can also arise out of fashion and economics, irrational beliefs and moral considerations of a particular culture.
So when we see a Taboo, it is often good to analyze: could this taboo have arisen due to health issues (here pork is a good example because of the danger of tapeworm infection) ? Or could the Taboo have arisen out of cultural reasons e.g dogs/horses are beloved in many cultures so a taboo may have evolved that we shouldn't kill them.
> I'm reasonably certain the idea of certain food being taboo is almost completely due to cultural norms.
TL;DR: Sometimes it due to cultural norms and sometimes its due to negative health outcomes that get noticed due to trial and error over generations.
We know that plenty of "natural" phobias are actually cultural, i.e. learned behavior. Toddlers and even infants pick up on social cues and develop fear and disgust responses by mimicking the behavior of adults and older children.
"Conditioning" is an unnecessarily spooky framing for what is quintessentially "culture".
My toddler's first reaction to ground pepper was to cry out in pain, exclaim "hot!" and never want to go near it again. Would you call it "conditioning" if my child later in life develops a taste for peppery dishes?
Some aversions are cultural, others aren't. Which are which?
The fact that bug eating remains niche around the world, generally only seen in regions with a recent history of food insecurity, suggests that the conditioned madness is eating bugs, not aversion to bugs.
I don't believe we have any such instinct, we only have cultural norms.
I can't imagine any ethical experiment which would adequately separate the two factors. It's difficult to raise a child without influence of their surrounding culture.
Predators in the wild tend to eat the vital organs of their prey first, yet for a great many people eating organ meats is gross.
Its instinctual, not cultural. I'm going to guess you're referring to hunter-gatherer societies that frequently have to overcome famine and eat bugs out of desperation.
