Food Bytes: March 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

Sunset in Timor Leste

Spring has sprung here in Gotham City, as the Sound Furies sung in Pishon. Yet the air feels heavy and unsettled. The political landscape may be fraught, the trajectory uncertain, but we cannot succumb to despair. Ben Okri wrote in his poem, Arequipa:

To discover

You still have

A world

To make

At sunset

Sobers

The stones.

They may try to dismantle, to divide, to darken the days ahead—but they cannot take the sunrises and sunsets from us. They cannot take our will to build, to dream, to make the world better. And so, dear readers, we keep going.

Onto some interesting news and fantastic science (yay for science being essential…) produced over the last month.

In the news and media:

  • Grist pontificates how the US government's wobbly tariffs will impact food prices and your grocery bill. Bottom line? It ain’t good. IFPRI modeled how tariffs would impact trade flows. Bottom line? Again, it ain’t good. Their modeling suggests that imposing 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada will cause food exports to the U.S. to decrease by 46.4% and 60.5%, respectively, with impacts across a range of imports, including fruits and vegetables, processed foods, and meat and fish. Maybe food, like eggs, should never have been cheap…

  • With all these rampant food price increases, maybe we will have to start eating lab-grown meat, but don’t hold your breath if you live in Mississippi.

  • But if you are eating vast amounts of meat, according to Vox, you can blame universities. Hell, we are catching all the heat these days - Bring. It. On. Yet, the same news outlet also blames pharmaceutical companies.

  • Another hit to food systems brought on by the new administration is the 1 billion dollar cuts to farmers supporting school meals and food banks. Sorry for those farmers who thought he had your back.

  • Novo Nordisk (the makers of Ozempic) has started a foundation and is beginning to fund large-scale global health research. It is too bad that the head of their obesity program is a paid advisor to confectionary company Ferrero, along with relationships with McDonalds and Nestle. Talk about conflicts of interest…

  • The Economist is calling out Ethiopia's prime minister, Abiy Ahmed’s claims that the country has become the breadbasket of Africa.

  • Speaking of agriculture, no one seems to agree with what regenerative agriculture is exactly.

  • There are so many wonderful tributes to the great Joan Gussow, who passed away at 96 - yes, good nutrition does pay off. She was a pioneer, started the discipline of “sustainable diets,” and spent her life at Teachers College at Columbia University. She inspired many at the university and across the world.

  • I was so pleased to see Flow win the Oscar for Best Animated Series - a film of hope amid climate change. It seems pets can’t get enough of it either.

  • On climate change, perhaps it’s time for better labels that inform us of the greenhouse gas footprint of foods.

  • And a shoutout to Timor Leste, one of my favorite countries. There are always fits and starts with new democracies. I am keeping my fingers crossed for them.

Among scientific publications:

Around the third or fourth month of the year, peer-reviewed scientific publications kick it up a notch. The slowdown of the holiday season is in the rearview mirror, and the pace of what is put out the world seems to have a bit of a boost. This month is no exception, making it hard for me to highlight a handful. I selected a few more unique papers that I thought were enjoyable reads.

The first focuses on avocados. This paper in World Development goes deep into cartels' control of the avocado industry in Mexico. Often touted as “green gold” because of the insanely high demand for avocados north of the border, media has reported that cartels have an inkling to get in on the action. But why do so if drugs are in high demand? This paper looks into whether declining drug revenues have led cartels to go into other agricultural commodities (beyond poppies for heroin). The author found that declines in heroin demand increased homicides among agriculture workers in the avocado industry, along with robberies of trucks carrying avocados for shipment.

Two interesting reflection manuscripts. One by the great Tom Reardon on bucking conventional wisdom using some of his long-standing work done in Asia and Africa on rural nonfarm employment, processed food demands, the role of small and medium-scale enterprises in food supplies, and the supermarket revolution/growth in Asia. The other is by colleagues led out of Vrije Universiteit Brussel that we should not forget history in planning food system transformations, particularly those working on future scenarios. Using three cases in Mozambique, Holland, and Bangladesh, they articulate the importance of taking a historical lens to scenario building.

Heat maps of total agri-food mass flux (kg) across transportation modes by flow type at FAF scale. a–c, Agri-food mass flux by highways, d–f, agri-food mass flux by railways and g–i, agri-food mass flux by waterways. Domestic agri-food mass flux (a,d,g), export agri-food mass flux (b,e,h) and import agri-food mass flux (c,f,i).

I am so thrilled to see more studies that are not just examining the impacts of climate on crops or agriculture but go beyond the farm gate to better understand climate shocks and change in the middle of the supply chain - storage, transport, processing, packaging, and retail. This study in Nature Food maps the transportation of food commodities throughout the U.S. by examining highways, waterways, and railways. They look at cost, carbon emissions, and what they call “path redundancies” (the existence of alternative paths). They find that highways are highly redundant to waterways, cost much more, and emit 60x more carbon. Waterways are the opposite in terms of cost and emissions. Railways are somewhere in the middle. Most food in the US is transported on trucks on highways using diesel fuel. It’s time to start using the vast number of waterways better in the U.S.

Great paper in Global Food Security by Preet Lidder and colleagues at FAO on the importance of innovation and technology in transforming rural places. This sentence resonated with me: “Quick technological fixes are unlikely to succeed; resilient and inclusive rural transformation will come from long-term research and innovation processes that incorporate critical inputs from local and traditional knowledge and are underpinned by supportive policies and social and institutional reforms.” Amen to that, sister. The paper discusses how technology can be used responsibly for lasting, equitable change.

Speaking of rural places, there is a land grab gold rush, and this paper in the Journal of Peasant Studies tries to unpack who is rushing, why, and where. Disaggregating the “who” is not easy - it is not always just a country and is often shadow companies or corporations with international interests. The default is to look at foreign land investors, but these authors also see domestic buyers within countries. Bangladesh has the highest percentage of domestic land deals, but Argentina, by far, has the highest number of both domestic and international (foreign) deals. What is the number one cause/use of these deals? Food. Who dominates in the buying of land? Private companies.

Spatial variation in sediment retention (t/year) benefit by watershed and fisheries catch (kg/year) and seafood meals (number/year) benefits by moku provided by agroforestry restoration

Another interesting paper published in Ocean Sustainability put empirical evidence to this notion of bicultural approaches. These approaches “emphasize the reciprocal restoration of both ecology and culture, elevate indigenous and local knowledge and rights, and align with the call for more just and equitable nature-based solutions.” They use Hawaii as their geography and show that restoration of forests through agroforestry increases sediment retention by 30%, nearshore fishery production by 10%, and cultural connection (as measured through biodiversity conservation and food security benefits).

Love this paper examining the trends of food retail environments and their associations with obesity. In the study, the authors dissected retail sector trends over the last 15 years (2009 to 2023) using 97 countries. Not surprisingly, chain outlet density has increased over time, out-competing non-chain outlets. This is happening rapidly across low- and middle-income countries (speaking of history and Tom Reardon, he described this a while back with the supermarket revolution). They correlate the growth of chain retailers with the sales of unhealthy food products as well as obesity prevalence.

Global changes in the current total cropland area within the SCSs in crop groups. GMC = General Circulation Models (of which there are 8) SCS = safe climate space

Finally! A paper that models the impact of climate change on crop yields that goes BEYOND maize, rice, and wheat. This paper in Nature Food modeled 30 major food crops under different global warming scenarios ranging from 1.5 to 4C. In low latitude areas (i.e., the global south), there will be shifts in the ideal locations to grow these foods, and crop diversity would decline ~50% on croplands around the world between 2 to 3 global warming scenarios. However, in higher latitudes, farmers could grow more diverse foods. This paper argues that we may need to shift northward if we want to keep demand with the pace of growing food and a diversity of foods. The authors state: “Alarmingly, we find that the largest adverse effects on current crop production are observed for crops and crop groups that are important elements of the food supply in their current major production areas…Furthermore, we show that the four global staple crops (wheat, rice, maize, and soybean) face some of the largest reductions in cropland area within the SCS, which underlines the need for diversifying crop production.” This study is more motivation to start looking at different crops and protecting the diversity of the global food basket.

Well, that’s all for this month’s Food Bytes folks! Keep watching those sunrises and sunsets and keep on keepin’ on.

Thank you Doc Zinke for teaching me the enduring power of science

The only photo I have of Doc Zinke from my high school year book…

My relationship with science began with struggle. As a student raised outside the scientific milieu, I found myself grappling with the core concepts of biology and physics. Yet, my trajectory shifted unexpectedly during my junior year of high school, thanks to Doc Zinke, my chemistry teacher. Despite his diminutive stature, he possessed an extraordinary ability to animate the often-abstract world of chemistry. Through engaging stories and real-world applications, he revealed science as a lens through which to view and understand the world. Although my grades did not immediately reflect a profound grasp of chem, Doc Zinke instilled in me a lasting appreciation for scientific inquiry.

Since that pivotal moment, science has remained a central theme in my life. My academic pursuits led me to a bachelor's degree in agriculture and a Ph.D. in nutrition. As a professor, I am privileged to be constantly immersed in the world of science. My partner, a mathematician, physicist, and writer, shares my conviction that data, evidence, and the relentless pursuit of scientific understanding are the primary drivers of progress.

I recognize that skepticism toward science is not unfounded. History is replete with examples of scientific advancements being misused, resulting in detrimental impacts on individuals, societies, and the environment. However, to reject science wholesale due to past transgressions would be a profound error. The current climate of widespread skepticism and the dismantling of scientific institutions, particularly universities, is deeply troubling. Do we not still seek innovative treatments and potential cures for cancer? Are we not compelled to advance agricultural science to feed a growing global population? Do we not recognize the importance of preventative medicines in safeguarding children's health? Does the exploration of space not ignite our imagination and expand our understanding of the cosmos? And, perhaps most urgently, do we not have a moral imperative to understand how to protect the health of our planet and its inhabitants?

Support for scientific endeavors and scientists is paramount, enabling us to describe the world around us and to understand its underlying mechanisms. Science is critical because it empowers us to solve complex problems and to make evidence-based decisions that can improve the quality of life across diverse domains, including food systems, healthcare, environmental conservation, technology, and communication. The cultivation of knowledge and the refinement of critical thinking skills are essential, and we rely on institutions—particularly universities—to nurture these skills in the next generation of scientists.

While science may not hold all the answers or provide an entirely objective representation of reality, it remains one of humanity's greatest collective endeavors. Science contributes to the strength of democracies by generating knowledge and informing solutions in the face of unprecedented challenges. Now, more than ever, we must safeguard science, scientists, those who teach science, and the institutions that support them. Higher education institutions, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation are crucial in ensuring that scientific advancements continue to benefit humanity and the world at large.

It seems in all of this freezing and firing chaos, we have forgotten that people are at the root of scientific endeavor, and I want to thank all the teachers and professors out there like Doc Zinke — Thank you for teaching me the enduring power of science.

Food Bytes: February 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

Someone recently asked me, “How do you have so much time to read?” I don’t, but these days, I find myself reading more as a deliberate form of escapism. Amid the current state of affairs, I need to remind myself that a collective continues to believe in science, evidence, and data, and the art of generating and sharing knowledge is not lost. So thank you—scientists, educators, and data generators—for all that you do to keep our world informed. Shine on you crazy diamonds! Let’s round up what The Food Archive is reading and listening to in the here and now.

The cost of food, is at the forefront of everyone's mind, including coyotes hanging out in grocery stores in Chicago. Much speculation exists about how the U.S. administration’s tariffs will impact food. For now, let’s put that debate on pause and, again, focus on the generators of evidence. The fantastic Eat This Podcast by Jeremy Cherfas has a recent episode that discusses Bennett’s Law with economist Marc Bellemare — this notion that people eat more nutritious foods (including animal source foods) when they have more disposable income. It is a great conversation, and Marc argues that his latest paper somewhat proves the “law.”

Speaking of cheap food, did you think that McDonalds restaurants could be “pretty”? The lore of design is bringing people to McDonalds. And for those who don’t like the corporate notion of McDonalds flooding fast food to the masses, it seems you lost. Is the New York Times being paid by McDonalds for these article placements? For some deeper dives into fast food, there is always the classic Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, but I recommend two more nuanced reads — Franchise: The Golden Arches of Black America by Marcia Chatelain, who won the Pulitzer Prize and White Burgers, Black Cash: Fast Food from Black Exclusion to Exploitation by Naa Oyo A Kwate. Both are worth the time.

Analysis by Politico on the hidden costs of food systems to diets in Italy.

Fast food has changed diets, and for some cultures, diets are disappearing (I snatched up the URL in case this trend continues). An interesting article in Politico argues that the Mediterranean diet is a lie, at least in Italy. Having lived there five years, I was always pleasantly surprised that traditional regional cuisines were preserved and revered, however in the confines of how a Mediterranean diet is defined, I didn’t see many diets from the north to south classically fall within that dietary pattern. Italians consume a lot of meat and cheese. The Politico article argues that the hidden costs of the Italian food system and diet do not fare well for health outcomes. Check it out. Speaking of Italian diets, I guess pasta is not a refined or ultra-processed food. Whew. I guess I can continue to eat my spaghetti ala vongole every Friday and not die at 55… The Japanese diet, a fish-dominant diet, is changing too. According to Grist, veganism is increasing.

Some lovely and alarming science is being generated about how our agricultural system will feed the world. According to colleagues at Tufts University (hey Will!), while food supplies are, in aggregate, fulfilling calorie needs, they are not fulfilling healthy calorie needs. Food availability of fruits, veggies, legumes, nuts, and seeds (the core makeup of a healthy diet) falls short worldwide. Regionally, there are considerable disparities in the supply of animal foods. We also have issues with water. This article in Nature Comms by scientists across the world (hi Kyle!) examined blue water, which is surface and groundwater often used for growing crops. They looked over time from 1980 to 2015 in China, India, and the US. They found that demand has risen significantly for blue water by 60%, 71%, and 27%, respectively, for a handful of crops, largely alfalfa, maize, rice, and wheat, and this rise in demand has created issues of scarcity and stress. Good times! According to Carbon Brief, we shouldn’t just be worried about water either. Extreme weather is destroying crops around the world. Check out their map and analysis (see below). According to colleagues at Purdue University (hi Tom!), all hope should not be lost. They examined the impacts of improved crop varieties since the early 1960s and argued that these crop improvements resulted in lower land use change, greenhouse gas emissions, and cropland expansion. Let the debates begin! And what is a summary of feeding the world and improving crop varieties without AI. A new outfit, Heritable Agriculture (sounds so down homey!…), wants to use AI to predict genetic changes to improve crop yield, taste, nutritional value etc, etc. No need for future Borlaugs of the world!

Map developed by Carbon Brief on extreme weather events impacting crops in 2023-2024

Food systems remain political monoliths, and many newly published papers focus on how to get over political inertia. Two new papers by Costanza Conti unpack top-down and bottom-up approaches to transforming food systems and how to better integrate or consider justice in strategizing, implementing, and monitoring food system transformations. A paper by Patrick Caron argues in a new Nature Food commentary that disagreements stymy action on food system transformation. He and several others have begun the Montpellier Process, which “promotes safe spaces for risk-taking, where citizens, decision-makers, economic players, and academics can compare their perspectives, share knowledge, address controversies, learn from one another, and explore potential solutions.”

Speaking of politics, a timely paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, including Editor-in-Chief Chris Duggan, argues that dismantling USAID and the withdrawal from the WHO by the current U.S. administration is catastrophic for global nutrition and health. In their conclusion, they wrote:

“The events of 2025 have dealt a catastrophic shock to international nutrition research, programs, and cooperation. Nevertheless, there are important questions about the status quo. The present crisis has drawn into sharp relief the global health and nutrition communities’ reliance on US funding. In addition, there have been growing calls for more equitable systems of scientific collaboration and programmatic decision-making.”

Here we are readers, …I believe we need to make some hard pivots based on these new realities and strategize in very different ways. Meanwhile, those of us in research and academia will keep the lights on, diligently documenting what we see in the world, why the world is the way it is, and what we can do about it, at least, scientifically speaking.

See ya’ll in March!

It's a very very mad world

Mad world was a song written in 1982 by Tears for Fears and covered years later by Gary Jules for Donnie Darko. The lyrics go something like this:

All around me are familiar faces, worn out places, worn out faces

Bright and early for their daily races, going nowhere, going nowhere

And their tears are filling up their glasses, no expression, no expression

Hide my head, I want to drown my sorrow, no tomorrow, no tomorrow

And I find it kind of funny, I find it kinda sad

The dreams in which I’m dying are the best I’ve ever hard

I find it hard to tell you, cause I find it hard to take

When people run in circles, it’s a very very mad world

Indeed, it is a very very mad world. What a time. What. A. Time. So much darkness. So much upheaval. So much unraveling. I wrote a couple of months ago that I had no strategy on how to move forward. It seems no one does. As Captain Willard (Sheen) said to Colonel Kurtz (Brando) in Apocalypse Now, “I don’t see any method at all, sir.”

The chaotic decisions being made in rapid-fire real-time will have massive ramifications on our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change and ensure food security. Disengaging and slashing the essential connectedness of the global food system by instituting tariffs, altering trade, and halting food assistance (and many essential medicines and care in low and middle-income countries), as well as divesting from climate change commitments will upend and rewrite world order and multi-lateral cooperation, putting the world on a perilous path. The U.S. is setting the stage for other countries to step in and up. Let’s hope whoever does leads with good intentions and puts the world in its right place. Let us hope. We have to hope. 

The figure below from the Washington Post (I know, I know…old habits die hard) shows that $5 billion of U.S. foreign assistance is dedicated to emergency food assistance. One-third of the foreign aid budget goes to food assistance and global health. We also know (thanks to tracking by the Global Nutrition Report) that roughly half of the nutrition Official Development Assistance comes from the U.S. Halting this essential aid is devastating and tragic, particularly in the context of climate change. It isn’t just about emergencies; it is about the long arch of international development that has been slowly but surely working to end undernutrition, hunger, and infectious disease burden. It is about building farmer capacity, empowering women, and helping people adapt to climate change. It is about staving off emergencies with a long view of making the world safer, healthier, and more peaceful in the long term. It is incredible how so much decadal dedication and steadfast commitment can be dismantled in just one week in such an unstrategic way with no long view of the implications of such a decision.

Aren’t we being our best selves when we have our hands on each other’s backs, supporting our fellow global citizens through difficult periods? I guess the U.S. disagrees, and we will be left isolated, moving backward, without anyone to help us when we find ourselves alone and facing difficult times. These difficult times are not an “if” but “when.” I didn’t realize just how soon that “when” could actually be…

I will go out on a limb and a whim and insist that it isn’t a mad world after all. There is only one mad hatter tending to this goat rodeo. Yes, his methods, if you could call them that, are unsound. And that is truly unfortunate for everyone who shares this big and beautiful planet.

Food Bytes: January 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

Here in NYC, we are settling into a deep freeze. I sort of like it. The air is a bit more electric and crisper. Clean. Silent. And when the sun shallowly crosses over the landscape and warms you up a tad, you feel so grateful. For those of you, dear readers, who know how this archiver spends her time, I eat a lot of clams (note the header change on the Food Archive). This time of the year has some of the best bivalve eating. This archiver also spends time with her better half making dark and sad music as part of the Sound Furies. It seems that with each passing year, we get less and less snow on the East Coast. It reminds me of this tune we recorded in 2019, but my better half wrote the lyrics when he was young, living in northern California., sleeping in his ‘67 mustang.

last night it snowed though it's almost summer
it hasn't snowed here for 6 yrs
maybe it was the silence, like a blanket in the night
we don't know why we had this dream

Enough pontifications about weather and clams. Let’s get into this month’s Food Bytes. I always like to start the monthly round-up with a few recommended books I have been reading. Here we go. An Immense World by Ed Yong is a fascinating view of how animals perceive the world through their specialized and adaptive senses. Douglas Brinkley’s whopping 600-page read, Silent Spring Revolution, provides a historical deep dive into the beginnings of the environmental movement in the United States in the 1960s. He articulates how presidents and scientists charted a course for protecting the environment (it is my background homework for a book I am working on that I allude to here). This was a time when presidents were presidential (yes, even Tricky Dick is looking good compared to what we are dealing with now…) and worked to preserve the planet instead of watching it all burn. Delano by John Dunne (Joan Didion’s husband) is about the California grape strike led by Cesar Chavez and his sacrifices to ensure that migrant laborers get a fair shake. Again, this book is incredibly timely with the present-day shifts in U.S. “policies” to deport immigrants—the very same people who are keeping us well fed and food secure. And last is Rachel Kurshner’s short story collection, The Hard Crowd. She just oozes cool.

Book reading by the food archiver

Food and cooking

There has been a deluge of articles and media attention on ultra-processed foods. Let’s start with that and then get into real food stories.

The change in attribution of sugar-sweetened beverages to diabetes (T2D) and heart disease (CVD) incidence across regions from 1990 to 2020.

  • Ah the lovely world of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). These foods are high in sugars, salts, or unhealthy fats and have additional ingredients such as additives, preservatives, and many other hard-to-pronounce ingredients that make them taste good and allow them to sit on shelves for decades. Many scientific articles are trying to attribute UPFs to various deleterious health outcomes, and the evidence, while varying in quality, is building. Enough so that policymakers are taking note. Research suggests that almost 60% of the American diet comprises these foods. Yum. The New Yorker put out an article trying to understand why that is. It is a good read that tries to unpack the evidence. One thing that comes up is that not all scientists agree on the impacts of UPFs on health.

  • A Nature Food article delves into how governments have responded to regulating UPFs. Most government action has been on consumer education, mainly labeling food products rather than eliminating or regulating the companies that make these foods.

  • It is not only foods we are talking about. There are also ultra-processed beverages. Using the Global Dietary Database, this Nature Medicine paper shows that in 2020, 2.2 million new diabetes cases and 1.2 million heart disease cases were attributable to sugar-sweetened beverages worldwide. Between 1990 and 2020, the most significant increased attribution of these drinks to diabetes and heart disease was in sub-Saharan Africa! However, sales of these beverages, particularly soda, are rising (see the figure to the right). Great…

  • Onto real foods. I highly recommend this New Yorker article on the secret history of risotto and the rules that govern how to make this delicious dish whose origins sit on the Po River (a river very constrained by climate change).

  • Speaking of iconic foods and their origins, those who have lived in NYC for decades likely remember this Indian restaurant enclave in the East Village. You know, the one with all the Christmas lights. Well, in typical warp-speed fashion and the brutal world of restaurant ownership in this city, the Indian restaurant hubs have moved to other parts of Manhattan and, more so, Queens. But still, this one restaurant in the village keeps shining on. Funny enough, my former college roommate lived above this place in the late ‘90s. It is (not)safe to say she had a roach problem.

  • Then we have tortillas. I wish we had a tortilleria in our hood, but alas, we have to buy the Mission brand tortillas, which taste like cardboard. As this article in the Atlantic suggests, they have lost their magic.

  • Last, but not squarely in food, the Lancet published a commission to find ways to measure obesity better. With all the kicked-up controversy regarding body mass index as a sufficient measurement tool to delineate overweight and obesity, it’s good timing. Here is a nice infographic that summarizes their recommended diagnostic.

Climate change

Let’s move on to a lighter topic: climate change! In all seriousness, we are in a scary time. This past year, 2024, was the warmest year on record, and the average global temperature was more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time, with 11 months of the year exceeding 1.5°C. To make matters worse, the current U.S. administration has pulled out of the climate accord and plans to “drill baby drill.” This trend and these political decisions fuel our motivation to fight the good fight and ensure the world moves towards mitigation and adaptation solutions, with or without the United States.

  • The Economist published a well-balanced article on the potential and limits of technology to mitigate climate change through the livestock sector. It is nice to see the International Livestock Research Institute’s work (based in Kenya and Ethiopia) highlighted—who partner with some of the poorest in the world who are tending to animals for their livelihoods.

  • One issue is to ensure that those countries and populations struggling with undernutrition still have options and choices to consume animal-source foods, particularly in places where access is incredibly and unfairly limited. The Netherlands Working Group on International Nutrition and Clim-Eat put out a brief on animal-source foods in low- and middle-income countries that nicely summarizes the broad evidence. My only gripe is that they should cite the original peer-reviewed publications and evidence toiled over by scientists as opposed to the reports that summarize the said evidence.

  • Grist, a fantastic climate/environment/food reporting outfit, wrote a worrisome article about how many farmers and farm workers now need to work at night due to extreme heat. conditions Farming is already hard enough, and now this.

  • Speaking of great journalism, Civil Eats has summarized a set of articles of their “best climate reporting” of 2024. Check it out.

  • I have lots of time and space for Kyle Davis’s work. In this paper in Science Advances, he and colleagues use high-resolution data on forest cover in Nigeria and find that 25 to 31% of annual forest loss is linked to climate variability. They also find that changes to forest cover have positive associations with dietary diversity, whereas cropland expansion does not. There is much to think about adaptation-wise regarding how the world manages land and forestscapes.

  • I always have to throw in a critique of the EAT-Lancet Commission. In this paper by Klapp and colleagues published in the Lancet Planetary Health, they articulate a justified framework of shortcomings (see figure below) that the Commission did not address in the first report in 2019 with the hope that these issues will be taken up by the Commission when the 2nd report comes out in the fall of 2025. What I can say at this stage, Anna-Lena, is that we cover some, but not all, of these crucial issues. It looks like a third Commission may be in order!

Current shortfalls of the planetary health diet from a plant-forward perspective by Klapp et al, LPH 2025

Food Systems and Farming

Alignment between food system transformation and degrowth

  • This paper in Nature Food by Matt Gibson and some of my favorite colleagues Constanza, Daniel, and Mario (yay, Cornell!) presents a fantastic notion that in the political momentum that we must “transform our food systems,” there is also this notion that we have also to consider downscaling of excess production and consumption among high-income countries and overconsuming individuals. The figure to the right shows the alignment (or misalignment) between the goals and objectives of degrowth and food systems transformation.

  • But some argue that big farms don’t need a lot of transformation and should stay the course of how they are being managed. This article ruffled a lot of feathers. The title, “Sorry, but this the future of farming,” is snarky and reeks of know-it-allism. Anyone who comes to the farming conversation as having THE solution is suspect. This article is the last in the NYT’s series on “What to Eat on a Burning Planet” — a mix of low and high-quality articles with some half-truths. Go to the bottom of this article to see the series.

  • Let’s get to some farming articles. This paper in Nature Communications argues for the importance of including genomics research and development of what are called underutilized crops, but also called neglected crops or opportunity crops—into breeding strategies, cutting-edge research, capacity building, and representation that some major crops like maize, rice and what get.

  • A slew of experts published this paper in Nature Food to highlight the importance of small-scale fisheries (SSF). In this mapping exercise, they estimate that SSF provides 40% of the global seafood catch worldwide. This 40% provides roughly 2 billion people with 20% of their dietary intake of six crucial micronutrients. Half of these SSF are women, and many are employed in Asia. Africa supplies the largest catch. This is a fantastic article for those interested in blue foods.

  • I love this Soil Atlas that comes out each year by the Heinrich Boil Stitlung/EU. This report is chock-full of great case studies and figures arguing for better care and management of soils worldwide to promote resilient agriculture and mitigation of climate change. Called the global silent crisis,” 1/3 of soils are degraded globally, and 40% of those soils reside in Africa.

Self-promotion (sorry!)

I always have to be a bit self-promotional. The Food Systems Countdown Initiative (FSCI) has published its third annual paper in Nature Food and Policy Report. The highlights?

The FSCI interactive tool on the Food Systems Dashboard

  • Over the past two decades, meaningful progress has been made in improving food systems. Of the 42 indicators examined, slightly fewer than half (20) changed in a desirable direction from 2000 to 2022.

  • Most of the FSCI tracked food system indicators interact with other indicators, either directly or indirectly, meaning that change in any one area of food systems is likely to affect others and that unlocking change may require coordinated action across multiple dimensions.

  • Certain indicators related to governance and resilience are key leverage points — and could be critical because of their influence and dependence on other aspects of food systems, and change in them can affect many other indicators.

One cool thing we did was put the indicators and their interactions on the Food Systems Dashboard. You can play with the FSCI data in all kinds of ways. To get yourself oriented, you can find the indicators here, all the data globally and by country, the country profiles of the FSCI data (for example, Kenya), and last, the interaction tool (which is pretty neat).

We’re screwed, but some more than others. And that is not fair…

  • The scary annual World Risk Report just came out and it just got a bit scarier this year. Gee, I wonder why…we are so screwed.

  • Reuters published a heartbreaking collection of journalism entitled “Starving World.” Just devastating but worth taking the time to read.

  • With avian flu sparking and spreading, this article in Nature Reviews Biodiversity is a warning call about pathogens and planetary change.

We THINK we have a choice

We saw the legendary Keith Morris play with his band OFF! (formerly the frontman of Black Flag and Circle Jerks) a few months ago, right before the 2024 U.S. election. In between songs, speaking to a mesmerized New York packed crowd, he ranted repeatedly, “We think we have a choice, we think we have a choice, we think we have a choice…”

This stuck with me. At the surface, we have tons of choices, but who is steering these choices, and are we siphoned into just a handful of 1-2 choices when it comes time to who we vote for, what social media platforms we participate in (bye bye TikTok), or what food choices we have on hand? We live in a monopolized, concentrated, and consolidated world order with massive power imbalances.

Now, dear reader, I am well aware that I live in a country with technically endless choices, and democracy is technically still standing (some would disagree with that!). Choice can be a beautiful thing. The choice to celebrate. The choice to act. The choice to revolt! The choice to check out. However, cracks are emerging across many countries and communities, beckoning questions like who has more choice? Who has less and why? Who is steering our choices? Who is interfering with them?

Yet, I wonder more and more about equity, freedoms, and diversity of choice, particularly in the context of food systems, and how these systems fundamentally are meant to ensure food security and optimal nutrition.

Equity of choice

The diversity and range of food choices depend on who you are, where you live, and the structures that support your life. The ability to choose a nutritious diet is conditioned by inequities in food access—which stem from broader social inequities. For example, physical, economic, and social access to food can provide many or limited choices. Consider these questions:

  • How close do you live to food sources?

  • Are you living in an area that lacks affordable, healthy food?

  • Do you have to take two buses and a subway to get to the market?

  • Do you need a car because there is no public transport?

  • Once you get to the market, can you afford the food?

  • Do you have enough money to buy food?

  • Are the markets even appropriate to your social norms and culture?

  • Do systems oppress your ability to choose?

And that's just for consumers! Think about farmers: Can small-scale farms and enterprises compete with large farms or transnational companies, or do they have to make harder, more limited choices to stay competitive?

Freedom of choice

Those who have the freedom of choice — in what kinds of foods they eat, how much they eat, and for farmers, what they grow and how they grow it — can make choices that benefit the world. For example, if countries with high meat consumption reduce their intake, they could help mitigate climate change, improve environmental sustainability, and promote animal welfare. It is often thought that one person can't change the world. Yet, we know that individual actions, when combined, can lead to collective impact. Individual choices can create change.

But people want autonomy. They don't want to be told what to eat. And they don't always want to make choices based on altruism. Many resonate with Federico Fellini, who once said...

"I became burdened…with useless baggage that I now want off my back. I want to uneducate myself of…worthless concepts, so that I may return to a virginal personality…to a rebirth of real intent and of real self. Then I won’t be lost in a collective whole that fits nobody because it’s made to fit everybody. Wherever I go, from the corner of my eye, I see…people moving in groups, like schools of fish… This is one of the things I fear more than anything else. I loathe collectivity."

That may be true. In the United States, for example, dietary choice is often driven by taste, price, and convenience and is less about solving “we are all in this together” problems such as climate change.

Diversity of choice

While some have more freedoms when it comes to choice, it begs the question as to how many choices we have within choice. Do we have a lot of variety, diversity, and range of choice? Some would argue no because the world has become more similar and homogeneous. We are converging. Technology has helped with process along. As Herbert Marcuse argued in his book One Dimensional Man, while technology provides endless information and choice, it would result in less variety of ideas and creative thinking. So, although people think they have more choices, the choices lack significant differences. This was written in the 1960s…

When considering the diversity of choice, it raises the question of who provides it. We know that our global food system is hyper-consolidated and concentrated — from the seeds to the inputs used on crops, to the varieties of crops grown and the agricultural subsidies that support only a handful of crops, to the retail markets that sell us our food. A handful of transnational companies control the majority of supplies, commodities, and foods we eat at every step of the supply chain.

Just knowing this makes me want to pull a Lloyd Dobler. If you don't know who Lloyd is, I encourage you to watch "Say Anything" — an '80s romantic comedy written and directed by Cameron Crowe. The lovable Lloyd Dobler, played by John Cusack, is asked about his plans for the future. He says:

I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed.

That sounds about right. You might want to avoid products made, processed, or sold by massive corporate food companies, but here's the harsh reality: we often don't have a real alternative. The scary part? Many of us can't simply opt-out. We can't all plant our own gardens, eat exclusively from what we grow, show local, and choose only foods that are good for us and the planet. The food system is like an invisible cage, constraining both farmers and consumers. Our choices are frequently predetermined by complex, interconnected systems that prioritize efficiency and profit over individual well-being and environmental sustainability. It's not just about willpower or desire. The barriers are systemic, making truly independent food choices incredibly challenging for most people. We're caught in a web of limited options, corporate control, and economic constraints that make genuine food autonomy feel like an impossible dream.

But I have hope on this holiday, Martin Luther King Day (yes, I am ignoring that other big event). He said, “There are a lot of things you can't choose for yourself, but you have to keep moving forward.” And we will do just that.

Bodies upon the gears

The years between 1965 and 1974, also known as the long sixties, were a decade in which the U.S. and the world were in great turmoil, witnessing a complete cultural shift led by the “baby boomer generation.” America had just emerged from a Great Depression and two devastating world wars that toppled and reorganized world order. As a result, it arose as the world's foremost economic, political, and military power with a resulting illusion of great prosperity and hope for the future. But things began to unravel slowly. Just a few years prior, the young, charismatic President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in broad daylight in Dallas, Texas. His assassination shocked the nation and ended the optimism and innocence many, especially the youth, felt for the country’s future.

By 1965, the U.S. entrenched itself in what was to be a senseless war in faraway Southeast Asia, where we had very little business engaging in, a commonly held view around the world. Then came more nonsensical assassinations. The first was in 1965, when Malcolm X, an American Muslim minister and human and civil rights activist, was killed while giving a speech in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City (where Columbia University’s medical campus now sits). Just three years later, American Baptist minister, one of the most prominent civil rights leaders, Martin Luther King Jr., and a president’s brother and the former U.S. Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, were both gunned down in hotels in Memphis and Los Angeles, respectively. Then, from 1972 to 1974, the Watergate scandal plagued the country, leaving citizens wholly untrusting of its government and the lengths it would go to cover up crimes, no matter how inconsequential or considerable. The darkness fully engulfed the country when former president Nixon resigned from office before a certain impeachment because of the scandal.

Times were, to put it lightly, unhinged, and the country was fractured. Protests were an everyday occurrence. Students were being injured or killed on campuses for demonstrating, sometimes by the National Guard, the very institution meant to instill peace and protect citizens. On the other side of the world, young men were sacrificing their lives for a war without cause. Sound familiar? Indeed…

Many young people bucked convention by attempting to create a new future on their terms—an authentic counterculture movement. They took risks—running away from home to protest in the streets, joining a commune, or getting lost in the haze of the Haight. Even before the dark days of ‘68-69, students mobilized in incredible, organized, and purposeful ways. Check out Mario Savio, a student activist and leader of the Berkeley Free Speech movement in the video below making a speech in 1964 on the Berkeley campus named "Bodies Upon the Gears" (also known as the Operation of the Machine). His speech is highly relevant today.

“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels ... upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

Dark days can breed creativity, and these times sparked new ways of thinking and living on this shared planet. Young people fought for a different and new world. A big part of that new world was about food and the beginning of climate and environmental justice movements. Some within the counterculture movement were deeply concerned about the direction of U.S. agriculture, its impacts on health and nature, and how the industrialization of the food system was moving more and more towards unhealthy, processed foods controlled by transnational conglomerates. These large-scale industries also spouted environmental contaminants and pollutants into ecosystems, further damaging the environment. There were also deep concerns about the unfailing violation of civil rights and the systemic social injustices domestically and abroad, much of that revealed through the U.S. food system. Democratizing food was a way to potentially address these myriad challenges and find a new, equitable future better for humans and the planet.

The counterculture movement explicitly used food to ignite a social revolution. They returned to the land and started communes to grow their food in organic, wholesome ways. They opened neighborhood co-operatives to sell and provide these foods to their communities. They (the Black Panthers) started safety net programs to feed children living in impoverished neighborhoods.

Putting the long sixties in the context with our world today, we are once more living in a highly polarized, fractured country, with significant loss of life on the domestic front due to everyday gun violence and shootings, drug and alcohol addiction, and unhealthy lifestyles. Our political position in the world is also uncertain, with increasing animosity and frustration towards America’s tactics to ensure its power and relevancy in a globalized society. At the same time, climate change is barreling down on the world because of powerhouse countries’ inability to commit seriously to mitigating global warming over the last 40 years. Diet and diet-related risk factors are now the top killers of disease and death in the country and the world. The U.S. is in the middle of a public health crisis with obesity and non-communicable diseases. For the first time, Americans’ life expectancy is one of the worst among high-income countries. Our food systems are unsustainable and fraught with fragility. So are the environment and the natural resources that agriculture depends on. The rights of citizens, particularly food system workers, marginalized groups, and women, continue to be violated across food systems and every other system.

They say one should study the past to know the future. In the world of food policy, where I spend my professional days, we keep repeating the past, reinventing the wheel of history, and not learning from what came before. Every so often, debates surface on how to feed a growing world, particularly when extreme weather events or conflicts spur food shortages, food price increases, and famines. Questions arise as to why our global food system is so fragile, why we trust international trade, and why we depend on just a handful of crops to feed the world. In addition, there are questions about tipping points related to population growth and climate change. Whether technology and innovation can keep pace or whether we are headed for a collapse. But on we go, with quick fixes that never entirely repair the problem but instead put band-aids on wounds that never entirely heal. That is why the challenges we face today as a global community are even more difficult. Food systems and a raging, changing climate show how fragile our society is and how much we could lose.

The counterculturalists wanted to transform food systems 60 years ago. Maybe their attempts at a social revolution did not work out as they envisioned. Still, they tried to create the foundation for a new society built on sustainable food systems that benefit human and planetary health, community cohesion, and global citizenry. They gave us enough to learn from, adopt, and adapt about how to better govern food systems and the environment while looking out for each other. They tried. Maybe it’s time to pick up where they left off and move forward.

Food Bytes: December 2024 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

I am here in Gotham City, writing my final blog post for 2024 in the quiet. This is one of my favorite times of the year. Not because it is Christmas and New Year’s, but more so because the whole world pauses. Less email, less bustle, less stress. The opportunity to not have to click on that Zoom link for a week or two is just pure bliss. My posts as of late have gone from reflection to angst to dread, but at this moment, dear reader, I am feeling “set” — like a voluminous beehive hairdo or a delightful buttery pound cake. I am ready to take on whatever 2025 brings, as I hope you are.

This is my last Food Bytes of 2024. I managed to publish 9 (not 12) this year. I learn a ton gathering up material for the monthly Food Bytes as it forces me to do some reading, listening, and watching to highlight the prolific content being put out in the world on food systems, climate, and nutrition. I feel incredibly fortunate to work in an area so rich and doused with science, politics, culture, and controversy. This area of chosen work would be dull without those elements all jumbled together and needing constant teasing apart. So here it goes…my last Food Bytes of 2024. Hang onto your hats, guys and gals, for a very interesting 2025…

Let’s start with obesity. There is so much coming out related to obesity prevalence and trends, as well as the new GLP-1 anti-obesity class of medications (formally known as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists). Earlier this year, the NCD Risk Factor Collaborators published a paper in the Lancet showing the obesity and undernutrition trends among adults and children. They showed that we have moved from a world paralyzed by undernutrition to a world of obesity, with some countries struggling with both forms. One in 8 people are obese - or 1 billion people suffer. Many of you know this story of the nutrition transition and the double and triple burdens of malnutrition, but the overall picture over the last 30 years is quite staggering. Check out the circular bar plots of the changes in the underweight burden (the blue bar's length shows prevalence) and obesity (pink/red bar) among women in 1990 and 2022.

Another paper just released, again in the Lancet, showed in the United States, between 1990 and 2021, the percentage change in the prevalence of obesity in adults was 123.6% in men and 99.% in women. They forecast that by 2050 if current trends continue, the total number of adults with overweight and obesity will reach 213 million. And I am not even reporting on teen prevalence. Wowsa. Yet, JAMA just published results that found that the prevalence of BMI and obesity in the United States decreased in 2023 for the first time in over a decade. Some pontificate it is because of the GLP1 inhibitors, others because of COVID-related deaths (obesity being a heightened risk factor for morbidity and mortality associated with COVID).

The difference could be that the Lancet paper by the Global Burden of Disease 2021 US Obesity Forecasting Collaborators didn’t investigate trends beyond 2021. In contrast, the JAMA authors showed a decline in 2023 specifically. Also, we don’t know the future of the GLP-1s. Currently, they are cost-prohibitive for many living in the United States and, moreover, the world. One report estimated that if half of U.S. adults with obesity took these drugs, it could cost the healthcare system $411 billion per year. The inequities in who has access to these drugs are staggering.

These medications certainly help people lose weight, with various studies showing reductions in body weight somewhere between 10-25%, as well as other benefits for those struggling with diabetes and cardiovascular disease, to name a few. I worry that we still know so little about obesity, its drivers, and the potential ramifications of medicalizing the challenge into one silver-bullet solution. I also fear that the scale-up of these drugs gets food systems and industry “off the hook.” Why stop making ultra-processed foods and ensuring food environments are healthy for people when they can easily take these drugs? But RFK Jr is going to solve all that, right? Don’t hold your breath. I appreciated this commentary by Francesca Celletti and colleagues in JAMA on where we are at in our understanding of obesity:

“The seriousness of the crisis is now widely recognized. Yet there are many challenges that continue to hinder a successful national and global response. Perceptions and attitudes toward obesity, including the debate about whether obesity represents a risk factor or a disease, are widely divergent. Efforts to address the stigma associated with obesity have, in some cases, evolved into a narrative that obscures the importance of obesity-related morbidity and mortality. Compared with other noncommunicable diseases, there remains a lack of knowledge on the associated biological and genetic factors, and there are inconsistencies in the appreciation of the effect of obesity on other noncommunicable diseases and the overall burden of disease. There is limited evidence on long-term management interventions and their effectiveness among populations most at risk and in low-income settings in relation to issues such as access and adherence.”

Speaking of nutrition trends, the Global Burden of Disease Group published their analysis on global, regional, and national progress towards achieving the six nutrition-related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets by 2030. The picture ain’t so rosy. These are their high-level results: “In 2030, we project that 94 countries will meet one of the six targets, 21 countries will meet two targets, and 89 countries will not meet any targets. We project that seven countries will meet the target for exclusive breastfeeding, 28 for child stunting, and 101 for child wasting, and no countries will meet the targets for low birthweight, child overweight, and anaemia.” Looking at current trends, the authors show that in 2021, seven countries had already met two of six targets (Georgia, Mongolia, South Korea, Peru, Rwanda, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico). What are they doing right? Case studies, anyone?

Diets heavily weigh into dietary outcomes, and as the SDGs stand, there is no target or monitoring of a dietary indicator, such as dietary diversity. SDGs. One of the juggernauts of our diets is how much animal source foods we should or could consume that benefit our health and the planet. A PNAS special feature delves into this quandary in what I think is quite a balanced set of papers showing all the angles and issues. We contributed a piece laying out the biological nutritional vulnerabilities stemming from high micronutrient needs per calorie among infants and young children, women of reproductive age, pregnant and lactating women, and older adults, particularly older women, and the importance of nutrient-dense foods coming from both plant and animal-source foods. Speaking of nutrient-dense foods, some colleagues from the Blue Foods Assessment published a paper in the Environmental Research Letters that assessed nutrition-sensitive climate risk to five essential micronutrients across production systems. By mid-century (2041–2060), we estimate that 75% of calcium, 30% of folate, 39% of iron, 68% of vitamin A, and 79% of vitamin B12 produced in primary food products will face frequent climate extremes globally. Nearly 50 countries are projected to face high domestic climate risk for two or more micronutrients during this period. Check out the figure below.

Speaking of the climate crisis, I have written before about tipping points, but some scientists argue the framing is distracting and confusing. Regardless, people are fatigued and confused by all the terminology: diebacks, atmospheric rivers, bomb cyclones. Grist calls it “alert fatigue”. The question is, does the fatigue translate into inaction? The scientists in that Nature paper argue that urgency and the terms and definitions to illustrate that urgency do not always translate into political commitments. And sadly, people are being left behind. Did you hear about Cyclone Chido on the French island of Mayotte? Neither did I. People are dying from climate-related extreme events, and we aren’t even able to count the dead or notice. Unless you live in a rich country… We are really on the edge here, and leaders seem to be shrugging their shoulders. Look at this year’s various COP events - climate, biodiversity, and dry lands. Were any binding and bold commitments made? Nope. And science is under ever more scrutiny and openly ignored and disregarded by some. This title says it all: Good COP, Bad COP, science struggles under a year of environmental summits. As this editorial argues in the Lancet Planetary Health, somebody has to move first. As the editors wrote: “…The absence of consensus on the world stage should not hold back individual countries from moving rapidly away from fossil fuels and benefitting from this. Keeping warming below 2°C is still possible, and actions that limit warming to almost any degree will be beneficial, but some have to do the right thing and decisively move first.”  The question is, who will be brave enough?

But we scientists keep churning. The IPBES Nexus and Transformative Change assessment summary reports have been released (my hermano, Mario Herrero, one of the lead authors says the very long reports are coming soon). First, what is IPBES? It is the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. It is similar to the IPCC in that it sits at the interface between science and policy and is meant to spur evidence-based political action. The Nexus report argues that we need to holistically tackle biodiversity loss, water and food insecurity, health risks, and climate change because these five areas interact, cascade, and compound each other, and addressing them separately is counterproductive, redundant, and inefficient. The Transformative report focuses on the underlying causes of the biodiversity crisis, the drivers of change, and available options and argues for a “whole of society” approach. Overall, their analysis is not a chipper one. Half of the world lives in areas hit hard by food and water insecurity and biodiversity loss. Biodiversity is in massive decline. And delaying action will be catastrophic. Action in these areas could unlock trillions of dollars in economic growth and jobs. The figure below is worth a lot. It shows a wheel of interconnected challenges (different colors) and barriers (different 637 letters) to transformative change.

We continue to push out sound data to inform policymakers across food systems. The Food Systems Countdown to 2030 Initiative will publish its 3rd annual paper in January, so stay tuned for that. Meanwhile, a few of us at the Columbia Climate School wrote a piece for IFPRI’s Impact group on food system data gaps and the future potential to measure food systems data with new big data technology.

As you may know, I am a big fan of rivers. This poem, Rest, Like a River by Leena Danawala is a fitting way to close out 2024:

I like the idea of a river yawning:

its mouth a vast open width,

just a symptom of fatigue.

I think of how it wraps its length

around itself, serpentine and sure;

how its waves rock back and forth,

a cradle on an unsteady floor.

on days like today, when the

spring fog has melted into my bones,

or when time seems to stop or slow,

I think of my spine as that river

and curl into myself like the letter “c.”

breath floating downstream,

body swaying like the currents of the sea.

We tell ourselves stories in order to live

This is the first prose from Joan Didion’s essay White Album. In the essay, Didion describes the moment she could feel the ‘60s “snapping” as she and her husband watched Robert F Kennedy’s funeral on TV from their veranda at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel in Honolulu.

It is uncanny how those times, the late 60s into the 70s, seemed calamitous but inspiring. The counterculture and protest movements were steadfast and resilient. Presidents were still presidential. There was hope for a better tomorrow with a dash of healthy resistance and revolution against “the system.” But Joan felt the tension of the snap. Comparing then to now, depending on what story you are telling yourself, many of us are feeling not only the snap but a full-blown break, and we seem to be sliding down the precipice of the break. The question is, how far down will we go…

In Didion’s essay, she goes further. She writes,

“We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the "ideas" with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience.”

We work with what we know, value, and believe within the constructs of our lives. These constructs are very different depending on who you are, where you come from, your skin color, your creed, caste, and gender. Your living and lived experience. Yet, we tell ourselves stories—fiction, non-fiction, fairytales, and horror. But many of the stories we hear and tell are informed by the pods, bubbles, and clusters where we associate and engage — for better or worse.

  • We tell ourselves stories in order to deceive: It won’t be that bad. We have systemic and institutional checks in place.

  • We tell ourselves stories in order to survive: We’ve seen this rodeo before. We just have to wait it out.

  • We tell ourselves stories in order to feel sane: But there is nothing sane about any of this. Something is deeply, deeply wrong.

Dear reader, you may be wondering why I shyly refer to storytelling and self-counseling. Let me enlighten you on The Food Archive’s current storyboard: She lives in the United States and is sensing the country’s political state unraveling. But it isn’t just that. It is world order overall, and the shifting winds towards isolationism. It is climate change and the many extreme events impacting so many people, particularly and disproportionately those least responsible for the warming of our earth. It is the lack of political will and wherewithal for industries to do the right thing beyond profit-mongering. It is the dizzying speed of AI, media, and technology—the mis-, dis-, and malformation that surrounds us and our robotic tendencies to let “it/they/them” manipulate and control our every move. And of course, I am profoundly concerned about people’s food security today, tomorrow, and in 2050.

We are leaving 2024 in a very complex, dizzying state of change. Even if you are gleefully happy about the turns happening in the United States, our planet and our place in it is precarious. This poem by Warsan Shire keeps running through my head:

“later that night
i held an atlas in my lap
ran my fingers across the whole world
and whispered
where does it hurt?

it answered
everywhere
everywhere
everywhere.”

Joan Didion felt the same way in 1968, but alas, we are still here, plodding along…So there is that. At least, that is the story I am sticking to.