Why “of course”? It’s not clear to me why that would the case. For instance, we wouldn’t expect the top 10% to account for 50% of all food consumption simply becuase they control 50% of the wealth.

Yes we could. Wealthy people eat more expensive food. Sometimes insanely more expensive. While the majority of Americans are debating whether or not to buy a dozen eggs this week, a wealthy man is spending a million dollars a year to feed themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyABU75DKjA

I said food consumption not amount spent on food. The two are different. The top 10% don’t consume 50% of the caloric intake of the nation.

I knew you'd say that, so I already have my answer: you're substituting your own definition of 50% for the articles definition: consumer spending.

I'd say you're moving the goalposts but trying to change "amount spent as an economic measure" to "caloric content" is more like looking at a football field and asking where home plate is.

Maybe it's not clear to you because you're one of the wealthy people?

Why should control of 50% wealth equate to 50% of all consumption? Why not 70% of consumption or 40%? What is the reason that the two percentages are expected to be the same?

Because in the US wealth and consumption are considered two sides of the same coin. Wealthy but not conspicuously consuming? You're not keeping up with the Joneses. Conspicuously consuming but poor (thanks, easy credit)? You'll be mistaken as having more money than you do.

The two sides often come together in the upper-middle classes, where people with more-than-comfortable incomes and financial resources will grossly overextend themselves on credit appear more well off than they already are.

They own substantially more than half of the wealth.