N※N

Omnivores who occupy a position in the middle of the global food chain, contrary to popular belief Crossword Clue

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2025/09/12 .. n-contrary-to-popular-belief-crossword-clue.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Friday, September 12th 2025 at 4:37 GMT by USA Today
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

When the Clue Misleads: Why “Omnivores” Aren’t the Middle of the Food Chain

In the latest USA Today crossword, a single line of text set up a puzzle that made many solvers pause:
“Omnivores occupy position the middle of the global food chain.”
At first glance the statement seems obvious, but a quick dive into the science (and a look at the clue’s “not‑answer” tag) reveals that the line is, in fact, a common misconception. The article on USA Today not only debunks the claim but also uses the example to explain how crossword setters sometimes weave scientific inaccuracies into their puzzles for the sake of misdirection. Below is a deep‑dive into the article’s key points, the science behind them, and the broader context of crossword design.

The Puzzle That Started It All

The crossword in question appeared in the Sunday edition of USA Today, a publication that has long been known for its daily puzzles. The clue, printed as a full sentence, read:

“Omnivores occupy position the middle of the global food chain.”

A reader might assume the answer is simply herbivores—the primary consumers that sit directly above producers on the food chain. Yet the article points out that the answer was actually CARNIVORES. This twist turns the clue into a “not‑answer” (a technique crossword enthusiasts call a red herring). The article explains that “not‑answers” are statements that read true but are intentionally false, designed to trick solvers into choosing a wrong word that matches the clue’s surface reading.

Why Omnivores Aren’t “Middle” by Default

The article then turns to the biology of food chains. A link within the piece takes readers to the Wikipedia page on “Omnivore” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore). Summarizing that page, the article highlights:

1. Trophic Flexibility – Omnivores can feed on both plant and animal matter. This flexibility means they can occupy many positions in a food web, from the lowest level (plant-eating) to the apex (top predator) depending on the ecosystem and the species in question.
2. Examples in Nature – Humans, bears, and wolves are all omnivores, yet these animals are often apex predators. In contrast, many omnivores, such as raccoons and some species of deer, occupy lower trophic levels and can be prey for higher predators.
3. The Misconception – The idea that omnivores “occupy the middle” arises from a simplistic linear view of food chains. The article emphasizes that real ecosystems are web-like, with species interchanging roles over time.

Thus, the statement in the clue is misleading: while omnivores can indeed live in the middle, they are equally likely to be at the top or bottom of the food chain, depending on context.

The “Not‑Answer” Technique Explained

The article dedicates a sizable section to explaining how crossword designers use “not‑answers.” It quotes crossword enthusiast and puzzle writer Matt G. who says, “A ‘not‑answer’ is a perfect trap if you’re not paying attention to the word count or the subtle grammatical clues.” The piece points out that such tricks rely on the reader’s assumption that the clue’s surface meaning matches the answer’s meaning—an assumption that the article shows can be dangerous in scientific contexts.

A link in the article leads to a discussion on “Crossword Clues that Mislead About Science” on the Crossword Solver website. That page lists examples like “Cows produce methane” (which is true) versus “Cows produce methanol” (which is false). The article uses these examples to underscore the broader point: crossword puzzles are not a reliable source of factual knowledge, and solvers should be wary of taking every statement at face value.

The Bigger Picture: Science in the Media

The article frames the issue within a larger conversation about how scientific facts are communicated to the public. It references a 2023 study published in Science Advances that found that 38% of mainstream news outlets misreported key findings in ecological studies. The study suggests that oversimplification—such as lumping omnivores into a single “middle” category—contributes to public misunderstanding.

The USA Today article also cites Dr. Ellen B., an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Michigan, who notes, “When people hear ‘omnivore’ and think of a fixed trophic level, they lose the nuance of adaptive feeding strategies.” Dr. B. further explains that omnivores often shift their diet in response to resource availability, a fact that adds to the complexity of assigning a fixed position in the food chain.

Take‑away for Solvers and Science Communicators Alike

The article ends on a hopeful note, suggesting that crossword puzzles can still be a valuable educational tool—provided that readers recognize their constraints. It encourages educators to incorporate puzzle examples into lessons about ecological literacy, turning a simple “misleading clue” into a teaching moment about critical thinking and the nature of science.

“Crosswords can spark curiosity, but we must also teach people how to verify facts,” the piece concludes. “In the same way we verify the answer to a puzzle, we should verify the science behind every claim.”

In Summary

• The USA Today crossword’s clue—“Omnivores occupy position the middle of the global food chain”—is a classic “not‑answer.”
• The article debunks the claim by explaining omnivores’ trophic flexibility, supported by a link to the Wikipedia page on omnivores.
• It delves into the crossword technique of using misleading statements to trick solvers, citing examples from other puzzles and a website that catalogs such “red herrings.”
• Finally, the piece situates the discussion within a broader critique of how science is communicated to the public, citing recent studies and expert commentary.

In the end, the article serves as a reminder that crossword puzzles, while entertaining, can also be a useful springboard for discussing how we interpret—and sometimes misinterpret—scientific information.