in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his placement on the Nutraloaf diet violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 522 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gordon’s claim that his placement on Nutraloaf violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir.1993) (stating that the Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health, not food that is tasty or aesthetically pleasing); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). However, Gordon also claimed that he was
holding that pretrial detainees have at least the same protections under the fourteenth amendment as posttrial detainees have under the eighth amendment holding in light of the supreme courts observation that the due process rights of pretrial detainees are at least as great as the eighth amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner  that the eighth amendment provides a minimum standard of care for determining the rights of pretrial detainees quoting revere 463 us at 244 103 sct 2979 holding that pretrial detainees possess a constitutional right against deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs because the due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as great as the eighth amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner holding that a prison official can violate a prisoners eighth amendment rights by failing to intervene holding that because pretrial detainees fourteenth amendment rights are comparable to prisoners eighth amendment rights the same standards apply