There is a particular kind of helplessness that exists on a farm.

I remember mornings when one of the first things I did was look at the sky.

Before breakfast. Before checking my phone. Before almost anything else.

On a farm, weather isn’t small talk.

You can prepare the soil. Plant at the right time. Irrigate carefully. Walk the fields looking for the smallest sign that something has changed.

And still, there comes a point when the outcome belongs partly to forces outside your control.

Rain.

Heat.

Wind.

Water.

Timing.

Farming taught me many things, but one of the most enduring was humility.

You are never working alone.

You are participating in something much larger than yourself. And when the conditions around you change, everything growing within them has to respond.

For years, I understood this primarily as an agricultural reality.

Lately, I’ve started thinking about it differently.

We tend to talk about climate resilience as an environmental issue.

Or an agricultural one.

We talk about drought and crop yields. Water availability. Extreme heat. Flooding. Soil. Infrastructure.

All of those things matter.

And they aren’t hypothetical concerns for American agriculture. USDA’s Climate Hubs describes U.S. agricultural productivity as sensitive to changes in temperature, precipitation, water availability, and extreme weather. Importantly, those effects vary considerably by crop and region.

But follow the relationship far enough and eventually you arrive somewhere much more intimate.

The human body.

Because agriculture doesn’t simply produce commodities.

It produces food.

And food becomes us.

When Climate Reaches the Grocery Cart

One of the strangest things about modern food is how easy it has become to forget where it came from.

Most of us don’t stand in the produce aisle thinking about rainfall.

We don’t pick up a bag of lettuce and think about irrigation infrastructure.

We don’t look at the price of berries and imagine what the temperature was when the plants were flowering.

The distance between the field and the grocery store allows us to experience food as though it simply appears.

But it doesn’t.

Every food carries the conditions that made it possible.

Water.

Weather.

Soil.

Labor.

Energy.

Transportation.

Time.

And when those conditions change, the consequences can travel much further than the farm.

Imagine a season of prolonged drought.

A farmer may irrigate more, if water is available. Some crops may produce less. Others may become more expensive to grow. Across a region, disruptions like these can affect production, supply, and eventually price.

We’ve seen this relationship play out before.

USDA’s Economic Research Service found that California droughts have generally been associated with higher retail produce prices, although the effects can take time to move through production and supply and drought is only one of many factors affecting price. Following five years of drought, retail fruit prices rose 3.7 percent in 2005 and vegetable prices rose 4 percent.

I find that lag interesting.

Something can happen in a field long before most of us know it happened.

Eventually, though, something that began as a change in growing conditions hundreds of miles away can arrive somewhere completely different:

the grocery cart.

And when food becomes more expensive, households respond.

They buy what stretches.

What lasts.

What everyone will eat.

What is available nearby.

What they can afford that week.

Climate doesn’t have to enter the doctor’s office to influence health. Sometimes it arrives through the grocery bill.

Food Security Is Also a Health Outcome

We often talk about food security in terms of whether enough food exists.

That matters enormously.

But I think there is another question hiding underneath it.

What kind of food remains available when a system is under pressure?

For me, food security cannot end with the question of whether enough calories exist. It also has to ask what kinds of food people can consistently access and afford.

This isn’t a small issue in the United States.

According to the CDC, around 18 million U.S. households experienced food insecurity at some point in 2023, and food insecurity is associated with chronic and acute health problems.

But what interests me here isn’t simply the number.

It’s what sits underneath it.

We spend a great deal of time telling people to eat more vegetables, choose whole foods, cook more, and make better choices.

But choices are made inside conditions.

What food is available, what it costs, where it is sold, how long it lasts, how much time someone has to prepare it, and what a household can afford all shape the decisions we later call personal.

If agricultural disruption changes the availability or affordability of food, then climate resilience begins to look different.

It isn’t simply about protecting crops.

It is also about protecting people’s ability to eat well.

And the more I follow that relationship, the harder it becomes for me to see agricultural resilience and human health as separate conversations.

Resilience Is More Than Yield

The word resilience gets used a lot.

Sometimes so much that I’m not sure we stop to ask what we actually mean by it.

I don’t think resilience means eliminating uncertainty.

Farming taught me that would be impossible.

There will always be weather.

There will always be seasons that surprise us.

There will always be things we cannot control.

Resilience is something quieter.

It is the capacity to absorb change without losing the essential function of the system.

For a farm, that may mean continuing to produce despite drought, heat, flooding, pests, or other disruptions.

But for a food system, I think the standard has to be higher.

Can it continue to nourish?

The longer I’ve worked around food and agriculture, the less interested I’ve become in perfect systems.

I’m much more interested in systems capable of adapting.

We have become remarkably good at designing systems for efficiency.

Fewer inputs.

Less inventory.

Greater specialization.

Faster movement.

Less unused capacity.

Efficiency can be enormously valuable.

But resilience sometimes asks for things that can look inefficient on paper.

Diversity.

Redundancy.

Spare capacity.

Multiple ways of solving the same problem.

Nature rarely depends on one relationship alone. Diversity and multiple pathways create ways of responding when conditions change.

Agriculture isn’t a forest, and farms cannot simply imitate ecosystems.

But I think there is something worth noticing in that pattern.

Efficiency asks how little a system needs when everything goes right.

Resilience asks what a system needs when something goes wrong.

Those aren’t always the same question.

Perhaps the goal isn’t to build agriculture capable of controlling what comes next.

Perhaps it’s to build agriculture capable of responding to it.

Leave a comment

Read more

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what makes a farm productive.

At first, the answer seemed obvious.

You grow food.

Hopefully, you grow enough of it to pay the people doing the work, cover the enormous costs of running a farm, survive the things you cannot control, and begin again next season.

The longer I spent around agriculture, though, the more complicated that word became.

Productive.

Productive according to what?

There are plenty of ways to answer that question. How much food did the land produce? How much revenue? How efficiently did the farm use water, labor, fertilizer, or fuel?

These are important questions.

But lately, I’ve found myself wondering about another one.

It sounds almost too obvious.

Food is grown, at least in part, to feed people.

And yet nourishment is rarely one of the primary ways we measure the productivity of the land producing it.

The more I think about that, the stranger it seems.

What We Measure, We Learn to Grow

For generations, agriculture has been asked to solve an extraordinary problem:

How do we produce more?

There were very good reasons for asking it.

Farmers needed enough production to make a living. Countries needed reliable food supplies. Growing populations needed to be fed.

And agriculture became remarkably good at answering.

In the United States, USDA data show just how dramatic that transformation has been. Farm output in 2021 was 190 percent higher than it was in 1948, while the total amount of inputs used actually declined slightly over that period.

That is an extraordinary achievement.

Plant breeding, mechanization, fertilizers, irrigation, storage, transportation, and countless other innovations helped make possible an abundance of food that would have been difficult to imagine generations ago.

Walk through a grocery store in the middle of winter and it is easy to forget how unusual this is.

Abundance matters.

The question isn’t whether producing more food was the wrong goal.

It wasn’t.

The question is whether it is the only goal agriculture should be asked to optimize.

Because measurements have a funny way of becoming more than measurements.

Once something can be measured, it can be compared.

Once it can be compared, it can be rewarded.

And once it can be rewarded, people become very good at improving it.

Agriculture is no different.

If markets reward yield, farmers have a reason to optimize yield.

If processors reward uniformity, breeders have a reason to prioritize uniformity.

If retailers need food capable of surviving long supply chains, shelf life becomes valuable.

None of these decisions are irrational.

They are responses to what the system has learned to value.

But over time, those signals accumulate.

They influence what gets bred.

What gets planted.

What gets purchased.

And eventually, what we eat.

Which makes me wonder:

What might agriculture begin to produce if nourishment became more visible too?

But How Do You Measure Nourishment?

This is where the question becomes much harder.

At first, measuring nourishment sounds relatively straightforward.

Measure the nutrients in the food.

But which ones?

Protein?

Fiber?

Iron?

Zinc?

Vitamins?

Phytonutrients?

And what about bioavailability, or how much of those nutrients our bodies can actually use?

Then there is the person eating the food.

A growing child has different nutritional needs from an older adult. Someone with an iron deficiency has different needs from someone who doesn’t.

And the farm is only one part of the story.

Genetics matter. Crop variety matters. Growing conditions can matter. So can harvest timing, storage, processing, preparation, and everything else someone eats.

This is why I am cautious whenever I hear sweeping claims that one farming system automatically produces “more nutritious food” than another.

The science is more complicated than the slogan.

But complexity doesn’t make the question less important.

It simply asks us to become more precise.

And there is evidence that some of these differences are real.

USDA researchers, for example, grew 14 different broccoli cultivars under replicated field conditions and found significant differences among them in minerals including calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, and zinc.

They did not find evidence for the simpler story that newer varieties were consistently lower in those minerals.

I think that’s an important distinction.

The point isn’t that modern agriculture somehow removed the nutrients from our food.

The science doesn’t support a statement that broad.

The more interesting finding is that what we choose to grow can influence what exists inside the food itself.

Which means breeding doesn’t have to ask only:

How much will this plant produce?

How resistant is it to disease?

How well will it travel?

How long will it last?

It can also ask:

What will it contain?

When Nourishment Becomes Something We Breed For

We don’t have to imagine this entirely.

For decades, researchers have been working on something called biofortification.

The word sounds more complicated than the idea.

Instead of adding nutrients to a food only after it has been harvested and processed, researchers ask whether crops themselves can be bred to contain higher concentrations, or more bioavailable forms, of particular nutrients.

Iron.

Zinc.

Provitamin A.

Different approaches have been used, including conventional plant breeding.

And suddenly nourishment becomes something agriculture can intentionally select for.

I find that fascinating.

Because it changes where we locate nutrition.

Normally, we begin talking about nutrition after the food already exists.

At the grocery store.

In the kitchen.

At the doctor’s office.

On the nutrition label.

Biofortification moves the question further upstream.

All the way back to the seed.

The research is promising, but it also gives us reason to be careful.

Biofortification has been studied far more extensively in places where micronutrient deficiencies are widespread. A recent review looking specifically at high-income countries found only 46 relevant peer-reviewed studies, 15 of them conducted in the United States.

There is much more we need to understand.

And I actually think that uncertainty matters.

We are not looking at a finished system.

We are looking at the beginnings of a different question.

Leave a comment

Read more

I’ve been thinking lately about how rarely we call things by their original cost.

A hospital stay is a healthcare expense.

A missed day of work is a productivity loss.

A prescription is a medical expense.

By the time poor nutrition becomes expensive, food has often disappeared from the conversation entirely. We give the expense another name: chronic disease, hospitalization, disability, lost productivity.

Of course, health is never that simple.

What we eat is only one part of a much larger picture shaped by genetics, environment, income, stress, sleep, movement, healthcare access, working conditions, and countless other forces that accumulate across a lifetime.

But food is there too.

Quietly.

Every day.

And the more I think about that, the stranger it seems that nutrition is so often treated as something that belongs primarily to the individual.

We talk about eating well as a personal responsibility. We talk about nutrition in terms of grocery lists, recipes, diets, and better choices.

Then, somewhere downstream, we begin talking about healthcare.

Or productivity.

Or insurance.

Or public spending.

As though these conversations have nothing to do with one another.

But what if they do?

What if we invested in nutrition before we were forced to pay for its absence?

The Costs We See Too Late

One of the things food systems have taught me is that consequences rarely appear where they begin.

A decision made in the soil can show up much later in a supply chain. A decision made in a supply chain can eventually shape what appears on a grocery store shelf.

Health works much the same way.

The conditions surrounding what we eat can accumulate quietly alongside many other influences for years before showing up somewhere entirely different.

And when the consequences become visible, the cost hasn’t disappeared.

It has moved.

Families carry some of it. Employers carry some. Insurers, healthcare systems, and governments carry still more.

Eventually, economies carry it too.

The numbers begin to show just how large that burden can become.

The World Health Organization reports that noncommunicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, accounted for at least 43 million deaths in 2021, or 75 percent of non-pandemic-related deaths globally. Diet is not responsible for all of that burden, nor should we pretend it is. But the WHO identifies unhealthy diets as one of the major modifiable risk factors for noncommunicable disease, alongside tobacco use, physical inactivity, harmful alcohol use, and air pollution.

In the United States, researchers have tried to put a price on one part of this relationship. A peer-reviewed analysis examining ten dietary factors estimated that suboptimal diets accounted for approximately $50.4 billion a year in costs associated with ischemic heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, representing about 18 percent of the total costs for those conditions included in the model.

The number matters.

But what interests me more is what it reveals.

Some of what we record as healthcare spending has roots that extend much further upstream.

We are simply better at pricing the consequence than the conditions that helped create it.

The Economy Depends on Healthy People

Businesses understand investment almost instinctively.

A company purchases better technology because it expects greater efficiency. It maintains equipment because breakdowns are expensive. It trains employees because knowledge and skill create capacity.

We spend today because we believe something will work better tomorrow.

Yet every organization depends on another kind of capacity that rarely appears on a balance sheet:

the health of the people doing the work.

Poor health can show up through healthcare costs, absenteeism, disability, reduced workforce participation, and presenteeism, when someone is at work but unable to perform at their usual capacity.

A study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined five chronic diseases and health risk factors among U.S. workers: hypertension, diabetes, smoking, physical inactivity, and obesity.

Each was associated with more than $2 billion in annual absenteeism costs nationally. For obesity alone, the researchers estimated annual absenteeism costs of approximately $11.2 billion.

Those numbers are not estimates of the cost of poor nutrition. Nutrition cannot be separated cleanly from these conditions, nor should it be. Health is shaped by far more than diet.

But the larger idea is difficult to ignore.

Health has economic value.

We readily understand education and professional training as investments in human potential.

Perhaps the conditions that allow people to remain healthy enough to use that potential belong somewhere in that conversation too.

Not because employers should decide what people eat.

But because every business already depends on what healthy people are capable of doing.

Leave a comment

Read more

Artificial intelligence may transform agriculture. I wonder what might change if it also learned from the systems that have sustained life for millions of years.

Last year, I stood in a field watching a murmuration of starlings.

The sun had begun to settle behind the trees, and for a few moments the field was completely still. Then, almost all at once, thousands of birds lifted from the grass. They stretched across the evening sky before folding back on themselves, changing direction so quickly that it became impossible to follow a single bird.

Nothing about it looked chaotic.

Nothing about it looked controlled.

I remember standing there much longer than I expected.

I wasn’t trying to understand how they flew.

I couldn’t stop wondering why they never collided.

Who was making the decision?

Or was that the wrong question entirely?

Later that evening, I found myself reading about murmurations. Scientists still don’t fully understand them. Each bird appears to respond to only a handful of its nearest neighbors, yet somehow thousands move together with astonishing precision.

No conductor.

No blueprint.

No bird telling the others where to go.

And yet the flock moves as though it has practiced for years.

I kept thinking about those birds.

Not because I needed an explanation.

Because I had the feeling they were showing me something I didn’t yet have the words for.

For most of my life, I thought I knew what intelligence looked like.

It looked like people solving problems.

Learning.

Remembering.

Inventing.

More recently, we’ve begun asking whether it can also look like machines.

Artificial intelligence has become one of the defining conversations of our time. Every week seems to bring another breakthrough. Better models. Better predictions. Better tools. Agriculture is no exception. Farmers are already using AI to identify crop stress before it’s visible, monitor fields from satellites, predict disease pressure, and make decisions that would have been unimaginable only a decade ago.

Subscribe now

I find all of that genuinely exciting.

But somewhere along the way, I realized I had become much more interested in a different question.

Not whether machines can become intelligent.

But whether we’ve overlooked the intelligence that has been surrounding us all along.

That question didn’t begin with artificial intelligence.

It began in fields.

Healthy soil doesn’t announce itself.

At first glance, it simply looks like dirt.

Then you spend enough mornings with it.

You notice the smell after rain.

You notice that water disappears into one field while it pools on another.

You notice earthworms where there were none before.

You notice that one crop recovers after a week of heat while another never quite does.

None of these moments asks for your attention.

They simply wait until you’re paying enough attention to notice them.

The same thing happened while turning compost before sunrise.

Steam rising into the cold morning air.

A shovel cutting through material that looked lifeless only months before.

At the time it felt like another chore.

Looking back, I realize I was watching countless organisms transform death into the conditions for new life.

No one organism was directing the process.

No one organism understood the whole.

And yet something remarkably intelligent was happening.

The longer I’ve spent around living systems, the less interested I’ve become in individual parts.

I find myself watching relationships instead.

A forest isn’t simply a collection of trees.

A pasture isn’t simply grass.

Healthy soil isn’t simply minerals.

The more closely I look, the more everything seems to exist because of something else.

Roots and fungi.

Flowers and pollinators.

Rain and soil.

Predators and prey.

Nothing remains separate for very long.

Everything is participating in something larger than itself.

At some point I realized this wasn’t simply changing how I thought about nature.

It was changing how I thought about almost everything.

Food.

Agriculture.

Health.

Business.

Communities.

Technology.

Around the same time, conversations about artificial intelligence seemed to be everywhere.

Nearly every headline was asking the same question.

How intelligent can technology become?

I rarely heard anyone ask another.

What if technology learned from the intelligence already surrounding us?

Leave a comment

Read more

I still think about quiet mornings on the farm.

Mist hung low over the fields. The compost pile steamed in the cold morning air. The cows grazed quietly, the only sounds coming from grass being torn from the earth and the slow sweep of their tails. For a little while, everything else was still. The farm was waking up, but it hadn’t yet found its rhythm.

Those mornings have stayed with me.

At the time, I thought I was learning how to grow food. Looking back, I think I was learning something much bigger. I was learning how living systems work. I just didn’t have the language for it yet.

Healthy soil isn’t created by one thing. It’s the result of thousands of relationships. Microorganisms, fungi, insects, plants, animals, water, sunlight, and time all have a role to play. Remove one piece, and eventually the whole system responds.

The longer I spent on farms, the more I began noticing that same pattern everywhere else.

For a long time, I thought agriculture and healthcare belonged to different worlds. Agriculture was about producing food. Healthcare was about treating illness. One belonged in fields. The other belonged in hospitals.

Now I’m not so sure.

When we talk about healthcare, the conversation usually begins with hospitals, physicians, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and medical technology. Those conversations matter. Modern medicine has transformed countless lives.

But lately I’ve found myself asking a different question.

What if we’ve mistaken where the story begins?

Before someone becomes a patient, they’re living within a set of conditions that shape their health every day. They eat. They sleep. They move. They spend time in communities. Their health is being shaped long before they ever walk into a clinic.

Food is one of those conditions.

And before food becomes nutrition, it is agriculture.

Every meal has a history.

Long before it reaches our plate, someone has cared for the soil, chosen a seed, and made decisions about how that crop will be grown, harvested, transported, processed, and eventually made available to us.

By the time we call something breakfast, lunch, or dinner, it has already lived an entire life.

I’ve started wondering what changes when we begin the story there instead.

On the farm, I learned that you can’t force life.

You can’t rush a season.

You can’t demand healthy soil.

You can’t convince a seed to grow.

You can only create the conditions that make growth possible.

Healthy soil.

Clean water.

Biodiversity.

Care.

Patience.

Time.

The harvest isn’t separate from those conditions.

It’s a reflection of them.

I’ve often wondered if health works the same way.

Maybe health isn’t something we create inside hospitals.

Maybe it’s something that emerges from the conditions we’ve created long before anyone becomes a patient.

If that’s true, then agriculture isn’t simply connected to healthcare.

It’s connected to the conditions that healthcare eventually inherits.

This isn’t an argument against medicine.

It’s an invitation to widen the conversation.

Because once you begin looking at health through the lens of living systems, it’s difficult to stop.

The health of our soil influences the food we grow.

The food we grow influences what people eat.

Sometimes I wonder how many of the challenges we’re facing come from trying to improve one part of a system without understanding the whole.

What if we invested in agriculture not only because it feeds us, but because it creates the conditions that make healthier lives possible?

What if healthcare systems saw farmers as partners?

What if food companies measured success not only by efficiency, but by nourishment?

I don’t have the answers.

Honestly, I think we’re still learning how to ask better questions.

Maybe that’s the work.

Not rushing toward certainty.

Becoming more curious.

Curious about the relationships we’ve overlooked.

Curious about the assumptions we’ve inherited.

Curious about what becomes possible when we stop treating living systems as separate pieces and begin seeing them as a whole.

When I think back to those quiet mornings on the farm, I realize they changed the way I see almost everything.

I thought I was learning how to grow vegetables.

Instead, I was learning how relationships create resilience.

I was learning that the health of one thing can never be separated from the health of another.

I was learning that some of the most important lessons about healthcare were never waiting inside a hospital.

They were already there.

Quietly unfolding in the fields.

I just hadn’t learned to see them yet.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold
Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Leave a comment

When I was in eighth grade, my class visited a renowned permaculture farm on the East Coast.

It was late spring, and one of the projects for the day was expanding a series of garden beds along the edge of the property. We spent the morning moving compost, turning soil, and learning about plants I had never heard of before. Everything felt new.

At one point, I was walking through the fields with one of the farmers when he suddenly stopped and bent down to pick up a handful of soil.

He wasn’t looking at the crops.

He was looking at the soil.

At the time, I didn’t think much of it. I assumed he was checking the moisture or texture before moving on with the day’s work. It seemed like such a small moment that I forgot about it almost as quickly as it happened.

Years later, after working on farms myself, I found myself thinking back to that handful of soil. I realized I hadn’t simply watched a farmer inspect the ground beneath his feet. I’d watched someone pay attention to the conditions that made everything else possible.

That moment has stayed with me ever since. Not because it taught me how to farm, but because it quietly changed the way I think about the world.

The longer I’ve spent working in agriculture, the more I’ve noticed that living systems rarely begin where we think they do. Healthy crops begin with healthy soil. Healthy soil begins with relationships that are largely invisible to us. Microorganisms, fungi, insects, water, sunlight, roots, and time all contribute to something we eventually describe with a much simpler word.

Growth.

It makes me wonder how often we become so focused on what we can easily measure that we overlook the conditions quietly making those measurements possible.

I’ve started to think that’s true in many parts of life.

But agriculture may be one of the clearest places to see it.

One of the things I’ve become increasingly curious about is the quiet influence of what we choose to measure. Not just in agriculture, but everywhere.

The things we measure become the things we pay attention to. Over time, they shape what we improve, what we invest in, and what we celebrate. Eventually, they begin shaping the world itself.

Agriculture offers one of the clearest examples.

For generations, we’ve measured success by yield.

How many bushels per acre.

How many pounds harvested.

How efficiently we can produce food.

Those measurements mattered.

As populations grew, increasing agricultural productivity became one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Farmers, researchers, scientists, and innovators found ways to grow more food and feed more people than ever before.

That progress deserves recognition.

But lately I’ve found myself wondering if yield tells the whole story.

Because producing more food and producing more nourishing food are not necessarily the same thing.

It occurred to me one day that agriculture may not have a production problem.

It may have a measurement problem.

Not because yield is the wrong metric.

Because it may no longer be enough on its own.

Every measurement reveals something.

It also hides something.

Yield tells us how much food a field can produce. It doesn’t tell us how nourishing that food is. It doesn’t tell us about the health of the soil beneath it. It doesn’t tell us how resilient that farm will be twenty years from now.

Those questions matter too.

The more time I spend learning from farmers, researchers, and ecologists, the more I realize that living systems rarely optimize for a single outcome. A healthy forest isn’t measured by the height of one tree. A healthy pasture isn’t defined by one species of grass.

Nature has a remarkable way of balancing productivity with resilience, diversity, and adaptation.

It makes me wonder why we’ve become so comfortable measuring agriculture through one dominant lens.

This isn’t a criticism of the past.

There were good reasons yield became our primary measure of success. Feeding a rapidly growing population demanded innovation, and increasing production transformed the lives of billions of people.

Every generation responds to the questions it believes are most important.

Perhaps ours is beginning to ask a different one.

I find that shift fascinating.

Because nutrient density isn’t simply another agricultural metric.

It’s a different way of thinking about success.

Instead of asking how much food leaves a field, it asks what that food carries with it. The nutrients, minerals, vitamins, phytochemicals, and countless other compounds that quietly support human health become part of the conversation.

It’s a subtle shift.

But subtle shifts have a way of changing entire systems.

When we change what we measure, we change what we notice.

When we change what we notice, we begin asking different questions.

How healthy is the soil?

How diverse is this landscape?

What growing practices produce the most nourishing food?

What does success actually look like?

Those questions don’t replace yield.

They expand it.

The longer I spend studying living systems, the less interested I become in choosing between one metric and another.

Nature rarely asks us to choose.

It asks us to see relationships.

Productivity matters.

So does resilience.

Efficiency matters.

So does nourishment.

I think that’s true beyond agriculture.

Every metric reflects a value.

Every value shapes a decision.

Over time, those decisions become the systems we live within.

That’s why I keep returning to that farmer holding a handful of soil.

He wasn’t measuring the harvest.

Not yet.

He was paying attention to the conditions that would eventually make the harvest possible.

I wonder how often the future begins in places we aren’t measuring yet.

And I wonder what might grow if we learned to look there.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold
Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Leave a comment

After spending several years producing outdoor farm dinners across farms, ranches, orchards, and coastlines, I began noticing the same pattern over and over again.

The locations changed, but the rhythm rarely did.

Some evenings unfolded along the coast, where a long communal table stretched across a pier suspended above the ocean. Fishermen unloaded the day’s catch just hours before dinner. The menu reflected the waters below us: fresh seafood, local vegetables, and salt carried in on the evening air.

Other dinners took place deep within working farms. Long tables wound through orchards heavy with summer fruit. Guests gathered beside vegetable fields still producing ingredients that would arrive on their plates later that evening. On livestock farms, animals grazed in nearby pastures while chefs prepared meals sourced almost entirely from the surrounding landscape.

One evening, a table stretched along the curve of a hillside overlooking an orchard. From one end, the white linen seemed to disappear into the landscape. Rows of citrus trees glowed in the fading light. The grass was still green from winter rains. Beyond the table, animals moved quietly through distant pastures.

Before a single guest arrived, it already felt as though the evening had begun.

No two dinners were exactly the same. The ingredients, chefs, farms, and seasons all changed.

But something else remained remarkably consistent.

Guests arrived while the sun was still high in the sky. At first, people stayed close to the people they came with. Conversations were polite. The energy felt structured and predictable.

Then the light began to change.

The meal unfolded in courses served family-style down the length of the table. Large platters moved from hand to hand. Bowls passed between strangers. Stories followed.

The sun slipped lower. The colors softened. Candles were lit. The first stars appeared.

What fascinated me was that almost nobody seemed aware of the transition while it was happening. No one checked a schedule. No one announced the next phase of the evening. And yet the atmosphere shifted with remarkable consistency.

The light changed. The temperature changed. The landscape changed. And somehow the people changed too.

By the end of the evening, conversations had deepened. Strangers were exchanging stories. People who had arrived with one small group were now talking with people they had never met before.

Nobody seemed eager to leave.

For a long time, I thought I was witnessing hospitality.

Now I think I was witnessing rhythm.

The more I reflected on those evenings, the more I began noticing the same pattern elsewhere. In the garden, in the orchard, in the field, and eventually, in people.

Spend enough time around living systems and a pattern begins to emerge.

Nothing operates continuously.

Fields alternate between production and recovery. Trees flower, fruit, and go dormant. Animals migrate, reproduce, and rest according to seasonal cycles.

Growth is never constant. It moves in patterns.

The same is true within our own bodies. We wake and sleep. Focus and recover. Inhale and exhale. Our hearts beat in rhythms. Our hormones fluctuate in rhythms. Even our energy, attention, and moods rise and fall throughout the day.

Life itself is rhythmic.

After spending years around farms, I began noticing that farmers rarely ask how quickly something can happen.

More often, they ask whether the conditions are ready.

The difference sounds small.

It isn’t.

Modern life often assumes that if something is not happening fast enough, something must be wrong.

Living systems operate differently.

A peach ripens when it is ready. A field recovers when it is ready. Seeds germinate when conditions allow them to.

The timing is the process.

For most of human history, human communities lived closer to these realities. The foods were different, the work was different, and the days themselves were different. Life changed with the seasons because it had to. Summer brought abundance. Winter brought preservation. Spring carried emergence. Autumn carried harvest.

The rhythm of the natural world shaped daily life in ways most people rarely had to think about.

Today, many of those distinctions have become harder to see.

We can buy strawberries in January, work long after sunset, move between climate-controlled environments regardless of season, and communicate instantly across time zones.

The modern world has brought extraordinary advancements.

But in the process, many of the rhythms that once shaped human life have become less visible.

The challenge is not that we have become disconnected from nature.

The challenge is that we have become disconnected from rhythm.

The expectation is often continuous output, continuous availability, continuous growth, and continuous stimulation.

The lights stay on. The notifications continue. The work follows us home. The seasons change.

The demands often do not.

Over time, something begins to feel off.

Not because modern life is inherently wrong.

But because living systems struggle when separated from the rhythms that sustain them.

A field that is never allowed to recover eventually becomes depleted. A forest that never experiences winter ceases to function as a forest. A body that never rests eventually finds ways to demand it.

The farther we move from those rhythms, the more difficult it becomes to recognize what health actually looks like.

Perhaps this is one reason so many people feel exhausted by lives that appear full.

Movement is not the same thing as momentum.

Looking back, I don’t think people came for the food alone.

The food mattered. The landscape mattered. The people mattered.

But those things alone cannot explain why people lingered long after the last course had been served.

Nothing about the evening felt rushed.

The meal did not unfold according to a schedule.

It unfolded according to the changing light, the pace of conversation, the passing of platters, and the landscape surrounding it.

By the end of the night, the conversations had deepened, strangers had become friends, and nobody seemed eager to leave.

Nothing had been forced. Nothing had been accelerated.

The evening simply unfolded according to its own rhythm.

The table followed the curve of the hillside.

The meal followed the changing light.

The people followed the evening.

Perhaps that is what living systems have always known.

Some things can only emerge when the conditions are ready.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold
Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Leave a comment

One of the strangest things about farming is how often nothing appears to be happening.

I remember standing in fields in late winter, looking out across beds that had produced abundance just a few months earlier. No vegetables. No flowers. No harvest. Just frozen soil, bare beds, and the quiet evidence that something had grown there before.

If you didn’t know better, you might assume the field had failed.

The farmer knew otherwise.

Beneath the surface, the field was still alive. Microbes were moving through the soil. Organic matter was breaking down. Nutrients were cycling. The conditions for future growth were quietly being created long before anything visible emerged from the ground.

Spend enough time around farms and a pattern begins to emerge.

Roots develop before leaves. Seeds germinate before shoots appear. Soil fertility is built before harvests arrive. Some of the most important things happen out of sight.

We celebrate visible outcomes. Revenue. Promotions. Followers. Launches. Milestones. Harvests.

We are far less comfortable with the seasons that come before them: the learning, the uncertainty, the preparation, and the invisible work that makes visible results possible.

The longer I worked in agriculture, the more I noticed something else.

Just because growth is invisible does not mean it can be rushed.

I remember trays of seedlings stretching toward the greenhouse glass long before they were ready to leave their containers. Their stems became thin and fragile, reaching for light before the season was ready for them.

Every grower is eager for spring.

Every farmer wants to get plants into the ground.

But timing matters.

Start too early and seedlings become weak and leggy. Plant too early and a late frost can undo weeks of work. Push growth before conditions are ready and the outcome often suffers.

Nature rewards timing more often than force.

The older I get, the more I find myself returning to that observation.

There have been periods over the past few years when very little appeared to be happening.

There were seasons when the work existed mostly as notebooks, questions, and conversations.

The visible signs of progress were often absent.

At the time, those seasons felt frustrating.

Looking back, many of them were quietly preparing the conditions for what came next.

That is the thing about growth.

We often recognize it only after it has already happened.

Summer is the season we celebrate.

Tomatoes ripen.

Peaches arrive.

Gardens overflow.

Fields that appeared dormant just months before suddenly seem full of life.

It is easy to mistake summer for the entire story because summer is when the results become visible.

But summer only exists because of everything that came before it.

The winter field. The greenhouse. The waiting. The unseen work beneath the surface.

We celebrate the harvest because it is visible.

We rarely celebrate the seasons that made the harvest possible.

We celebrate the fruit and forget the field.

Perhaps that is why so many people struggle with growth.

Not because growth is seasonal.

But because we expect every season to look like summer.

That expectation follows us into our careers, businesses, health, and relationships.

We expect constant expansion, constant momentum, and constant progress. When those things disappear, even temporarily, we assume something has gone wrong.

Nature suggests something different.

A seed cannot be rushed into becoming a tomato plant.

An orchard cannot be forced into producing peaches in February.

A field cannot be harvested before the crop is ready.

Growth is not simply the result of effort.

It is the result of effort applied in the right season.

The challenge is learning to recognize which season we are in rather than demanding that every season produce the same outcome.

The field was never failing.

It was simply in a different season.

The work was happening long before the harvest appeared. Growth was still happening, just not in the way most people were looking for it.

The field was not waiting for summer.

It was becoming the reason summer was possible.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold
Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Leave a comment

Several years ago, while building and managing a 40 acre farm project in Colorado, we brought home a trailer full of peach seconds from a nearby orchard.

Within hours, the pigs were sleeping in them.

The peaches weren’t destined for grocery stores. Some were bruised. Some were too ripe. Some had simply ripened faster than the market could accommodate. They couldn’t be sold, but there was nothing wrong with them.

The moment we opened the trailer gate, the pigs came running.

By the second day, the entire pasture smelled sweet. Peach pits scattered across the ground. Yellow jackets drifted lazily through the warm afternoon air. The pigs disappeared into piles of fruit during the hottest part of the day and emerged sticky and satisfied.

Before long, the rest of the farm started investigating too.

Chickens pecked at the peaches that rolled away from the main pile. Curious dogs approached cautiously, sniffing the fruit before taking an uncertain lick and quickly deciding peaches were far less interesting than meat. Even the insects seemed to arrive in greater numbers, drawn by the scent of ripening fruit.

For a brief moment, everything on the farm seemed to organize itself around peaches.

I remember picking one up and taking a bite.

The skin barely held together.

Juice ran down my wrist before I finished the first bite.

The aroma arrived before the flavor did.

Everything about it felt more vivid.

It tasted complete.

It tasted like the orchard, the season, and the place it came from.

That experience stayed with me.

Not because it was the best peach I had ever eaten, although it may have been.

It stayed with me because it raised a question.

More Than a Peach

Most of us have been taught to think about food as individual products.

A peach is a peach.

A strawberry is a strawberry.

A tomato is a tomato.

But anyone who has spent time around farms knows this isn’t true.

Two peaches can look nearly identical and taste entirely different.

One may be fragrant, juicy, and unforgettable. The other may be perfectly beautiful and strangely forgettable.

The difference is not always visible.

Because flavor is not a fixed characteristic.

Flavor is an expression of conditions.

The Conditions That Create Flavor

When people talk about flavor, they often talk about ingredients.

Agriculture tells a different story.

Flavor develops through relationships.

Sunlight, temperature, rainfall, soil biology, microbial activity, pollinator populations, seasonal timing, and countless other variables all contribute to the final fruit.

What we experience as sweetness, aroma, texture, and complexity is often the visible expression of invisible conditions.

A perfectly ripe peach has a remarkably short window. Harvest it too early and something essential never develops. Wait too long and it begins to break down. The difference between a forgettable peach and a memorable one is often measured in days.

A peach harvested at the peak of summer is carrying a different story than one harvested under different circumstances.

The fruit may look similar.

The experience is not.

Why We Forgot What Peaches Taste Like

One of the consequences of modern food systems is that many of us rarely encounter foods at their peak.

A peach harvested for shipping has different requirements than a peach harvested for flavor.

It must survive transportation, storage, handling, and time.

None of this is inherently problematic.

It is simply a different objective.

Modern food systems are remarkably good at preserving availability.

They allow us to eat peaches in January and strawberries in December. They make foods accessible across distances and seasons in ways that would have been unimaginable for most of human history.

But availability and quality are not always the same thing.

Modern systems are exceptionally good at preserving products.

They are less effective at preserving context.

The remarkable thing is that many people have never experienced the alternative.

They have never eaten a peach still warm from the summer sun.

Never picked one at peak ripeness.

Never experienced how dramatically different the same fruit can become when season, timing, and place align.

As a result, we sometimes mistake familiarity for quality.

We assume we know what a peach tastes like.

In reality, many of us have never met the peach at its full potential.

Quality Emerges From Context

One of the things agriculture teaches over and over again is that outcomes cannot be separated from the conditions that create them.

A peach does not simply contain flavor.

It expresses the environment that produced it.

The flavor of a peach begins long before it reaches your hand. It begins with sunlight, weather patterns, soil biology, water availability, seasonal timing, and the countless relationships that shape a growing season.

Quality cannot be separated from context.

Quality is a reflection of conditions.

The more time I spend around farms, the more I find myself encountering this principle everywhere.

The conditions matter.

Often more than we realize.

The Taste of Summer

Perhaps this is why certain foods become so memorable when they are eaten in season.

There are few foods that embody summer quite like a peach.

Not because they are rare.

But because they are complete.

A summer peach carries the conditions that allowed it to become fully itself. The long days, the warmth, the sunlight, the timing, and the countless relationships behind a growing season all arrive together in a single bite.

Most people think they are tasting a peach.

But a peach is never just a peach.

It is the visible expression of sunlight, weather, soil, water, season, and time.

The fruit is simply where those conditions become visible.

Perhaps that is why certain foods stay with us long after the meal is over.

Not because they tasted good.

But because, for a brief moment, we experienced something in its proper context.

Perhaps the things we value most are never separate from the conditions that created them.

A peach simply makes that reality easier to taste.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold
Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Leave a comment

What a summer garden reveals about the hidden relationships that make life possible

In the summer of 2025, I was back home in Vermont visiting one of the first farms I ever worked on.

The garden was at its peak. Tomatoes hung heavy from the vine. Basil spilled from garden beds faster than anyone could harvest it. Cucumbers seemed to appear overnight. Bees moved steadily between flowers while zucchini leaves stretched across entire sections of the field.

Every harvest basket seemed to contain the same collection of foods.

Tomatoes.

Basil.

Cucumbers.

Peppers.

Zucchini.

The abundance was striking.

But after a while I stopped noticing the abundance.

What caught my attention was the coordination.

Why were all of these plants thriving at the same time?

Why did they seem to arrive together every summer?

At first, the answer seems obvious.

Because it’s summer.

But that explanation only pushes the question back one step.

What is it about summer that creates this particular collection of foods?

The deeper I looked, the more I realized the garden was revealing something much larger than seasonal produce.

It was revealing how living systems work.

More Than a Collection of Plants

One of the most common mistakes we make when looking at a garden is assuming we are looking at individual plants.

A tomato plant. A basil plant. A cucumber plant. A pepper plant.

But nature rarely operates as a collection of isolated parts.

A summer garden is not simply a gathering of vegetables. It is a living system.

Tomatoes respond to sunlight. Pollinators respond to flowers. Soil microbes respond to moisture. Every organism is responding to changing conditions and, in subtle ways, to one another.

What we see above ground is only the visible expression of a much larger conversation taking place below the surface and all around us.

Why Summer Produces Summer Foods

Tomatoes do not appear in July by accident.

Neither do peppers, basil, cucumbers, melons, or zucchini.

These plants thrive under similar conditions. Long days. Warm soil. Consistent sunlight. Active pollinator populations. Summer creates the conditions that allow these crops to flourish.

The remarkable thing is that no one is coordinating the process.

There is no central planner directing tomatoes to ripen at the same time basil reaches its peak. No one tells pollinators when to become active or soil microorganisms when to accelerate biological activity.

And yet the system organizes itself.

Every organism responds to changing conditions, and together those responses create the abundance we associate with summer.

What appears random is often highly coordinated.

What appears simple is often deeply complex.

Vermont growing seasons are short. By midsummer, the garden can feel almost urgent, as though months of stored energy are finally being released all at once. Some years the tomatoes arrive early. Some years a cold spring delays everything. Some years the basil struggles while the cucumbers thrive.

Spend enough time growing food and you realize the garden is never repeating itself, even when the season appears familiar.

Nature is constantly creating order without imposing control.

The Intelligence Hidden in Relationships

When I use the word intelligence, I am not suggesting a garden is thinking.

What fascinates me is that no single organism understands the entire system, and yet the system consistently produces conditions that support life.

A healthy garden coordinates sunlight, water, nutrients, pollinators, fungi, microbes, insects, weather patterns, and soil in ways that no individual part could ever fully comprehend.

The intelligence does not exist in one place.

It emerges from relationships.

No tomato plant understands the garden.

No bee understands the ecosystem.

No microorganism understands the farm.

Yet together they create something far more sophisticated than any individual part could achieve on its own.

Complexity does not always require control.

Sometimes complexity emerges through relationship.

The more time I spend observing farms, ecosystems, organizations, and even communities, the more I find myself encountering the same principle.

Relationships create outcomes that no individual part could achieve alone.

Living systems do not function because someone is managing every variable. They function because relationships are allowed to develop, adapt, and respond to changing conditions.

The intelligence is not imposed from above.

It emerges from within.

What Modern Food Systems Often Miss

One of the consequences of industrial food systems is that we become accustomed to seeing food primarily as products.

Food becomes something measured, transported, marketed, and sold. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Modern agriculture has achieved remarkable things.

But something can become invisible when we focus exclusively on products.

The relationships disappear from view.

The soil.

The pollinators.

The season.

The place.

What remains is the item itself.

The remarkable thing is that the relationships never actually disappear.

They simply become invisible.

A tomato grown in a greenhouse in January still depends on relationships. A cucumber shipped across a continent still depends on relationships. Nature’s logic remains the same even when modern systems obscure it.

The quality of a tomato is inseparable from the relationships that created it. Flavor, nutrition, resilience, and seasonality all emerge from the conditions that produced it.

The product is only the final expression of the system behind it.

The Garden Is Showing Us Something

Every summer, gardens quietly demonstrate principles that extend far beyond agriculture.

They show us that abundance is relational. That resilience emerges through diversity. That timing matters. That context matters. That healthy systems depend upon countless interactions happening simultaneously.

Nature is coordinating thousands of relationships at once.

Sunlight. Water. Pollinators. Soil microbes. Roots. Fungi. Insects. Birds. Weather patterns.

Most of it unfolds beyond our awareness.

We notice the tomato.

We rarely notice the thousands of relationships that made the tomato possible.

Perhaps that is why a summer garden feels so remarkable.

Not because it produces food.

But because it reveals something that modern life often obscures.

We notice the harvest.

Nature notices the relationships.

And perhaps that is the difference.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold
Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Leave a comment

What seasonal food, longer days, and summer evenings reveal about the rhythms that shape human life

Last weekend, I was riding my scooter to work early in the morning, cutting across Santa Monica and into Venice in the early morning hours.

The city felt different.

Dog owners were out for their morning walks. Coffee shops and cafés already had lines forming outside. People lingered over breakfast instead of rushing through it. Windows were open. Linen shirts and workout clothes seemed to have replaced jackets overnight.

The city seemed to be moving at a different pace.

Nobody appeared to be in a particular hurry to go inside.

It’s something I notice every year around this time. Without anyone announcing it, summer had arrived.

Here in Southern California, summer often arrives less dramatically than it does in other parts of the country. There is no sudden snowfall melting away or dramatic transformation of the landscape. Instead, the season reveals itself through subtler signals. The quality of the light changes. The evenings stretch a little longer. Farmers market tables begin carrying the scent of peaches before you ever see them. The city seems to exhale.

Most of us think of summer primarily as weather. A few warmer months positioned between spring and autumn. But riding through the city that morning, I found myself wondering whether summer is something much larger than that.

The food changes. People’s behavior changes. The rhythm of daily life shifts almost imperceptibly. Even our relationship with time seems different.

Nature does not treat summer as merely another chapter on the calendar.

And perhaps humans were never meant to either.

We often talk about seasonal food.

But what if seasonality was never just about food?

What if human beings were seasonal too?

What if our energy, our communities, our celebrations, our work, and even our expectations of ourselves once shifted with the seasons in much the same way that farms and ecosystems still do today?

The longer I spend paying attention to food, agriculture, and the natural world, the more I find myself wondering whether one of the least discussed consequences of modern life is not that we’ve lost seasonality in our food, but that we’ve lost seasonality in our lives.

To understand summer, start with what grows.

The Arrival of Abundance

If summer has a language, food is one of the ways it speaks.

One of the easiest places to witness that conversation is at a farmers market. Walk through one in January and then return in July. The difference is remarkable.

Winter markets have their own beauty. Citrus, root vegetables, hardy greens, and storage crops dominate the tables. They reflect a season focused on resilience, conservation, and endurance.

Summer feels entirely different.

Tomatoes appear in every imaginable shape and color. Peaches, nectarines, plums, melons, sweet corn, basil, cucumbers, peppers, and beans seem to arrive all at once. The market becomes a celebration of growth made visible.

A farmers market in July feels less like a marketplace and more like a report card from the natural world.

What fascinates me is how easily we take this abundance for granted. A perfectly ripe peach can feel ordinary when there is an entire table filled with them. Yet every peach carries within it an entire season of sunlight, soil, water, and time. Every tomato reflects a web of relationships between plants, pollinators, microorganisms, weather patterns, and the farmers who steward them.

Spend enough time on farms and you begin to realize that abundance is rarely sudden. What appears to happen overnight is usually the result of months of invisible work.

Summer doesn’t create abundance overnight.

It reveals it.

What appears sudden is often the result of months of invisible work, unfolding quietly beneath the surface long before anyone notices.

In that sense, summer may be one of nature’s most honest seasons. It reveals what has been nurtured, what has been neglected, and what conditions made possible.

For most of human history, people understood this intuitively. Seasonal eating was not a philosophy or a wellness trend. It was simply reality. You ate what was available because that was what existed. Summer foods arrived in summer. Autumn foods arrived in autumn. The seasons shaped the menu.

Today, global supply chains have largely removed those boundaries. We can buy strawberries in December and tomatoes in February. There are obvious benefits to this convenience, but it can also make it easy to forget that food still has a natural rhythm.

Some foods seem to belong to a particular moment in time.

A ripe peach in July.

A tomato still warm from the sun.

Fresh basil picked just before dinner.

Part of what makes them special is that they won’t be here forever.

Summer Pulls Us Outside

Food is perhaps the most visible expression of summer, but it is far from the only one.

People change too.

Even in a world of climate-controlled buildings, artificial light, and increasingly digital lives, summer continues to influence how we move through the world. We spend more time outdoors, travel more frequently, gather more often, and somehow find ourselves lingering a little longer wherever we go.

Neighborhoods that felt quiet in February suddenly feel alive again. Sidewalks stay busy after sunset. Parks fill. Beaches fill. Restaurant patios overflow. Entire communities seem to become more visible.

Summer has a way of pulling life back into public view.

Summer’s pull toward the outdoors feels cultural, but I suspect it runs much deeper than that.

Humans evolved in relationship with changing seasons. Long before calendars, office buildings, and smartphones, our lives were shaped by sunlight, weather, food availability, and ecological rhythms. Those influences have not disappeared simply because modern life has become more convenient.

The body still responds to light. Sleep patterns shift. Energy shifts. Mood shifts. Many people feel an instinctive desire to move more, explore more, socialize more, and spend more time outdoors during the summer months. Not because someone tells them to, but because the conditions themselves invite it.

Without consciously realizing it, we begin participating in the season.

What Grows in Summer

If spring is the season of emergence, summer is the season of visibility.

The seeds planted in spring begin revealing themselves. Gardens produce food. Orchards fill with fruit. What was once hidden beneath the soil becomes impossible to ignore.

Nature begins showing its work.

The same pattern often appears in our own lives.

Ideas that began as conversations start becoming projects. Relationships deepen. Creative work gains momentum. Efforts that have been quietly developing begin taking shape in the world.

Summer carries an energy of expansion. Not endless expansion or forced expansion, but the kind that occurs naturally when the conditions are right.

Nature offers an important lesson here.

Growth is seasonal.

Modern culture often behaves as though growth should be constant. More output. More productivity. More acceleration. More achievement.

Nature follows a different logic.

There are seasons for planting, seasons for growth, seasons for harvest, and seasons for rest.

Summer is powerful not because it lasts forever, but because it doesn’t.

The abundance of July is meaningful precisely because it is temporary.

The Rhythm We Forgot

One of the least discussed consequences of modern life may be the disappearance of seasonality.

Not from agriculture.

Not from ecosystems.

From human life.

We have preserved seasonal foods far more successfully than seasonal ways of living.

Food remains seasonal whether we notice it or not. The tomatoes still arrive in summer. The birds still migrate. The gardens still bloom. The length of the day still changes. Nature continues operating according to rhythms that have existed for thousands of years.

Meanwhile, many of us attempt to live every month in much the same way. The pace remains constant. The expectations remain constant. Work continues uninterrupted regardless of season.

Summer becomes another quarter.

Winter becomes another quarter.

The distinctions begin to blur.

Perhaps this helps explain why so many people find themselves drawn toward seasonal eating, seasonal wellness, and a renewed connection with the natural world.

Maybe what feels refreshing about seasonal living is not that it introduces something new.

Perhaps it reminds us of a relationship that was never meant to disappear.

Summer will eventually disappear.

The peaches will leave the market tables. The basil will flower and go to seed. The tomatoes that seem so abundant right now will become something we wait for again.

The long evenings will shorten. The beaches will grow quieter. The rhythms of daily life will begin shifting once more.

Nature never asks summer to last forever.

It simply allows summer to be summer.

Perhaps there is wisdom in that.

Not every season is meant for the same things.

Not every season asks the same questions.

And maybe part of living well is learning to notice what each season is offering while it is here.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold
Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Leave a comment

Pick up a carton of strawberries at the grocery store and almost everything important about them remains hidden.

You can see the price. The branding. Maybe the country of origin printed somewhere near the barcode. But most of the story itself is invisible.

You don’t see the soil they were grown in.
You don’t see how early they were harvested.
You don’t see the cold storage facilities, refrigerated trucks, packaging systems, warehouses, labor conditions, or logistical coordination required to move them across continents before arriving under fluorescent lighting in the middle of winter.

You just see strawberries.

Perfectly red.
Available in January.
Stacked in plastic containers that have traveled farther than many people will this year.

And somewhere along the way, we stopped thinking about how strange that actually is.

Modern convenience often depends on invisibility.

Not only in food, but across modern life more broadly.

Most people have almost no visibility into how the products surrounding them are grown, sourced, processed, transported, or optimized before they arrive on a shelf.

Food systems became increasingly globalized and industrialized over the last century to support convenience, efficiency, consistency, and scale. In many ways, that system worked remarkably well.

It created abundance.
Year-round availability.
Global access.
Predictability.

But it also created distance.

Distance between people and land.
Distance between consumers and producers.
Distance between meals and seasonality.
Distance between the appearance of food and the conditions under which it was grown.

When I first started working on farms, one of the things that struck me most was how physically complex food production actually is. Agriculture is deeply dependent on conditions most people rarely see: weather, water, soil health, timing, biodiversity, labor, and regional ecosystems.

Food in retail environments often appears detached from all of that.

Tomatoes become products. Milk becomes packaging. Produce becomes inventory.

And something important gets lost when that happens.

Not only transparency, but relationship.

People lose visibility into where food comes from, how it was grown, who produced it, and what tradeoffs were made along the way.

Seasonality becomes less visible. Regional identity weakens. Food literacy declines. Meals become increasingly disconnected from geography, agriculture, and the physical realities that sustain them.

At the same time, consumers are being asked to navigate more labels and marketing language than ever before.

Organic.
Natural.
Local.
Regenerative.
Pasture-raised.
Grass-fed.
Glyphosate-free.
Seed oil free.

Grocery stores are filled with language attempting to communicate trust inside systems most people can no longer fully see for themselves.

And the growing skepticism around food isn’t irrational.

People feel it when ingredient lists become unreadable. When ultra-processed foods dominate entire aisles. When strawberries look perfect in January but taste faintly of water. When tomatoes have no smell anymore. When food travels thousands of miles before reaching a plate.

People are no longer only questioning ingredients.

They are questioning the conditions surrounding modern food itself.

Because underneath most food conversations right now is a deeper discomfort with disconnection.

Disconnection from sourcing.
From agriculture.
From labor.
From seasonality.
From the environments producing what we eat every day.

I’ve noticed that when people reconnect to food in a more tangible way, something shifts.

You see it when someone cooks a seasonal meal slowly instead of eating standing over a sink between emails. You see it at farmers markets. On farms. Around long tables. In conversations where people suddenly remember that food is not just fuel or productivity optimization, but part of culture, memory, care, family, and place.

People want transparency now because trust has eroded.

Not branding.
Not aesthetics.
Not performance marketing.

Trust.

Trust that food was grown responsibly.
Trust that labels actually mean something.
Trust that nourishment was prioritized somewhere along the way instead of efficiency alone.

This is partly why people are paying closer attention to sourcing, traceability, regional agriculture, and how food is actually produced.

Not because everyone suddenly wants to become an expert in supply chains.

But because many people are craving a more honest relationship with the systems feeding them every day.

Not perfectly.
Not obsessively.
Just honestly.

And I suspect this desire for visibility will only continue growing over time.

Because the more industrialized and disconnected systems become, the more valuable transparency becomes alongside them.

Especially in food.

Food is never just a product.

It carries agriculture, labor, infrastructure, economics, culture, health, and trust inside it.

And whether people consciously realize it or not, I think many are beginning to hunger for a more connected relationship with those realities again.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold
Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Leave a comment

Most people can feel that something about food has changed.

Even when they can’t fully explain why.

A tomato still looks like a tomato. Bread still looks like bread. Strawberries still arrive perfectly red and polished in plastic containers in the middle of winter. Grocery stores remain full. Shelves remain stocked.

Everything appears abundant, optimized, and consistent.

And yet, many people sense that something about food feels different.

Meals feel less satisfying. Produce spoils faster. Food often looks beautiful but tastes strangely empty. Convenience has increased, but nourishment somehow feels harder to access.

People describe feeling exhausted, overstimulated, inflamed, or disconnected from their own bodies in ways they can’t fully explain.

I don’t think this is only psychological.

Subscribe now

I think many people are responding to something real.

I started noticing it years ago while working on farms.

When you spend enough time around food before it becomes a product, you begin to understand how deeply alive it is to its conditions.

Soil matters. Water matters. Timing matters. Sunlight matters. Stress matters. Attention matters.

Two tomatoes are not the same simply because they look similar.

A tomato grown in healthy soil at the height of summer, harvested nearby and eaten within days, carries a completely different vitality than one grown primarily for transport durability, premature harvesting, and long shelf life.

They may appear identical in a grocery store bin.

But they are not coming from the same conditions.

And conditions shape outcomes.

Modern grocery stores created the illusion that all food is interchangeable.

Tomatoes became standardized. Apples became standardized. Chicken became standardized. Seasons became less visible. Geography became less relevant. Food became available everywhere, all the time.

Uniformity became synonymous with quality.

But food was never meant to be uniform.

Over the last century, agriculture increasingly optimized for efficiency, scale, consistency, transportability, and output. Food systems evolved around the demands of modern life: speed, convenience, shelf stability, mass production, and year-round availability.

In many ways, this created extraordinary abundance.

But it also created distance.

Distance between people and land. Distance between meals and seasons. Distance between consumers and producers. Distance between nourishment and convenience. Distance between the appearance of food and the conditions under which it was grown.

And I think people feel that distance, even if they never think consciously about agriculture at all.

They feel it in subtle ways. In energy. In digestion. In attention. In satiety. In the strange experience of eating constantly while still feeling undernourished.

Food became something consumed between obligations rather than something connected to rhythm, culture, memory, or care.

Meals compressed themselves into productivity schedules. Cooking became optional. Eating became individualized. Convenience became the dominant organizing principle.

And somewhere along the way, many people lost an embodied relationship with food altogether.

I don’t say this with judgment. I understand why it happened.

And I think many people are beginning to feel the consequences of building food systems around efficiency instead of nourishment.

Because food is never only nutritional.

It is emotional. Cultural. Environmental. Economic. Familial. Relational.

Food carries memory.

Some of the most meaningful moments in my life have happened around meals. Cooking with family. Eating food tied to culture and tradition. Sitting at long tables after working outside all day on a farm in Colorado. Cutting into a tomato still warm from the sun. Sharing meals that felt grounding because the food itself still carried a relationship to place, season, and care.

Those experiences stay with people.

Not because they are performative or idealized, but because something inside us recognizes when nourishment feels real.

I think that’s part of why food conversations have become so emotionally charged.

Because beneath the debates about ingredients, diets, farming, labels, and health trends is a much deeper human question:

What does it actually mean to nourish a human being well?

Not just calorically.

Not just efficiently.

But fully.

And increasingly, I think people are craving reconnection.

Not perfection.

Not purity.

Not food ideology.

Reconnection.

To ingredients they recognize.

To meals that feel human again.

To cooking.

To seasonality.

To slower rhythms.

To local agriculture.

To knowing where something came from.

To environments that support health rather than quietly deplete it over time.

Food is one of the most intimate ways people interact with the environments surrounding them every single day.

Whether consciously or not, I think many people are beginning to hunger for a more connected relationship with the conditions shaping modern life again.

People are not just craving healthier food.

They are craving reconnection.

To nourishment.

To rhythm.

To land.

To culture.

To the experience of being human in a world that increasingly feels disconnected from the conditions that sustain life in the first place.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold

Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Leave a comment

Most farmers will never meet the people whose bodies are shaped by the food they grow.

Most doctors will never see the soil conditions that determine the nutritional quality of the food they tell their patients to eat.

Subscribe now

This is not a failure of care or intention on either side. It is a structural separation built into how modern systems evolved. Agriculture and medicine developed as parallel domains, governed by different incentives, trained in different languages, and evaluated by different outcomes. Over time, the feedback loop between land and body quietly disappeared.

Today, farmers are rarely told how the food they grow affects long-term human health. Doctors are rarely told how soil depletion changes the nutritional profile of the food they recommend.

That distance matters.

Over the last several decades, the nutrient density of many staple crops has declined, even as food production has become more efficient and calories more abundant. During the same period, chronic disease, including metabolic dysfunction, autoimmune conditions, and inflammatory illness, has steadily risen. These trends are almost always discussed in isolation, as if they belong to different worlds. One is framed as an agricultural issue. The other as a medical one.

But they are not separate phenomena. They are expressions of the same systems logic.

When soil is treated as an inert medium rather than a living system, food becomes simpler. It becomes less mineral-rich, less biologically complex, and less informative. When food becomes less informative, bodies require more intervention to maintain balance. When bodies struggle to maintain balance, medicine steps in, often without visibility into the upstream conditions that shaped the problem in the first place.

No one actor is at fault. The system simply is not designed to see itself, only to keep moving.

Farmers operate under real constraints: volatile weather, thin margins, debt, land access, labor shortages, and markets that reward yield and consistency over long-term resilience. Their success is measured in output, not in health outcomes they will never be shown.

Doctors operate under equally real constraints: limited time, protocol-driven care, and reimbursement structures that prioritize treatment over prevention. Their success is measured in symptom management, not in the ecological conditions that made those symptoms more likely.

Both are asked to perform well inside systems that fragment responsibility and obscure cause.

What is missing is not more data, but relationship.

There is no formal feedback loop that tells a farmer how mineral depletion in soil shows up years later as widespread deficiencies in human populations. There is no standard training that helps a doctor understand how farming practices influence the nutrient density of the foods they recommend. The land and the body are treated as separate domains, even though they are part of the same biological continuum.

This separation shapes culture as well. We talk about food as fuel, medicine as repair, and health as an individual responsibility, rather than as an emergent property of interconnected systems. We ask people to eat better without asking how food is grown. We ask farmers to produce more without asking what kind of nourishment that production actually delivers.

Regenerative agriculture, at its core, quietly challenges this fragmentation. Not by making moral claims, but by restoring visibility. It treats soil as a living system whose health determines the quality of what enters the food chain. In doing so, it reintroduces coherence between land and body without demanding belief, alignment, or identity.

But coherence requires conversation.

Imagine a system where farmers receive feedback not only on yields, but on nutrient density trends and long-term health correlations. Imagine a medical culture where food is understood not just as macronutrients or categories, but as an expression of ecological conditions. Imagine if the question “What should we eat?” naturally led to “How was this grown?” without either becoming ideological.

This is not about asking farmers to become doctors, or doctors to become farmers. It is about acknowledging that both are stewards of living systems, operating at different points along the same continuum.

When systems stop speaking to each other, problems become harder to diagnose and easier to mismanage. When they reconnect, patterns emerge that were previously invisible.

The question is not whether farmers and doctors should talk to each other.

The question is what becomes possible when they finally do?

Leave a comment

Dear Reader,

Every founder has an origin story. Mine begins before I even had language, in a place that taught me, without my understanding it yet, that human lives are profoundly shaped by the environments and systems we enter.

I spent the first nine months of my life in an orphanage. I don’t remember it consciously, of course, but I understand now what that means.

None of us are shaped in isolation.

For me, the circumstances aligned in a way that would define everything that followed.

I was adopted into an extraordinary multicultural family. My father is Danish. My mother is Lebanese and Syrian.

I was raised between cultures, identities, stories, and philosophies, moving between worlds rather than belonging to just one. I grew up as a third culture kid, never fully from a single place, but deeply at home in many.

Looking back, that was my first education in observation, long before I ever studied sustainability or worked with land.

To grow up between cultures is to learn to see patterns, to feel nuance, to translate between ways of thinking, and to understand that identity is not fixed but something that emerges in context.

My childhood was defined by world-class education, classical arts, cultural richness, community, travel, tradition, belonging, and, most importantly, love. I had two parents who adored me and a brother who shaped my world.

It was a life built on care, intention, and exposure to the world. A system that nourished my potential.

And that is where everything truly begins.

Long before I studied sustainability or worked in agriculture, I was already becoming interested in the invisible conditions shaping human life.

Third culture kids navigate life at the intersections, constantly moving between environments. You start to see the invisible architecture of things—culture, norms, dynamics, cycles—because you are always adjusting to them.

But later, when I began working on farms, studying soil health, and watching degraded land slowly return to vitality, I recognized something deeply familiar.

The conditions shaping healthy land were often the same conditions shaping healthy people, communities, organizations, and cultures.

Environment mattered.
Rhythm mattered.
Relationships mattered.
What was nourished tended to grow.
What was depleted eventually began to break down.

Everything felt connected in ways I hadn’t fully understood before.

This realization didn’t come from theory or textbooks. It came from experience.

In my late teens and early twenties, I worked on farms in Vermont, Colorado, California, and Hawaii. Those years changed the way I understood nearly everything.

Subscribe now

Agriculture teaches you quickly that life responds to conditions.

Soil either gains vitality or loses it.
Water is either retained or wasted.
Food either nourishes or depletes.
Land either regenerates over time or slowly breaks down beneath the surface.

Nothing exists independently.

Watching degraded land slowly return to health through attention, stewardship, biodiversity, and ecological restoration felt less like learning and more like remembering something ancient and deeply intuitive.

Nature revealed a different rhythm entirely.

That resilience is built slowly.
That diversity creates stability.
That exhaustion is often a sign of imbalance.
That growth without restoration eventually leads to collapse.
That healthy systems support life rather than slowly extracting from it.

Farming didn’t just change the way I thought about agriculture. It changed the way I thought about modern life itself.

As my work expanded into hospitality, wellness, executive operations, media, leadership, and organizational environments, I began noticing many of the same patterns appearing far beyond the farm.

Burnout where there should have been sustainability.
Speed replacing rhythm.
Fragmentation replacing coherence.
Optimization without nourishment.
Growth without long-term health.

The issue was rarely individual people.

More often, it was the environments surrounding them.

The conditions themselves were misaligned.

At a certain point, everything began connecting.

The third culture kid. The farmer. The chef. The operator. The founder.

It all fit together long before I understood why.

Across every environment I entered, I kept observing the same disconnects.

The food world understood nourishment but often struggled with scale.
Business understood growth but often ignored ecology.
The wellness world understood the body but not infrastructure.
Leadership spaces spoke about people while operating inside systems that depleted them.

Everyone held a piece of the puzzle. Very few were looking at the whole.

Ana Intl emerged from that realization.

Not as a company focused on a single industry, but as a broader exploration into the relationship between food, agriculture, human vitality, leadership, culture, and the future of modern life.

A place to explore how healthier systems create healthier outcomes over time.

This publication is part of that work.

A space for observations, essays, reflections, and interdisciplinary thinking grounded in the belief that the environments surrounding people shape far more than we often realize.

Some pieces will explore food systems and agriculture. Others may move through leadership, burnout, hospitality, organizational culture, or modern life more broadly.

Ana Intl is not a trend or a moment in culture. It isn’t commentary.

It is an exploration into the relationship between food, agriculture, human vitality, leadership, culture, and the future of modern life.

It brings together everything I have learned across environments — from food systems and farming to hospitality, wellness, leadership, media, and organizational life.

It is the culmination of years spent observing how environments shape people, how culture shapes behavior, and how the conditions surrounding us quietly influence what becomes possible over time.

From the orphanage to my family home.
From farms to boardrooms.
From kitchens to leadership teams.
From land stewardship to modern organizational life.

My life gave me a particular vantage point.

Ana Intl is how I use it.

This publication is the written form of that exploration.

A place where I share the observations, questions, and tensions shaping my thinking around food, health, leadership, culture, and modern life itself.

Some essays will be strategic. Some personal. Some grounded in agriculture and food systems. Others in culture, leadership, hospitality, or organizational environments.

But all of them are rooted in the belief that healthier environments create healthier outcomes over time.

My story matters not because it is dramatic, but because of what it taught me.

That environments shape people.
That nourishment extends far beyond food.
That burnout is often structural, not merely personal.
That resilience cannot be separated from the conditions surrounding us.

Over time, I’ve come to believe that healthier ways of living and building become possible when we begin paying closer attention to the environments, rhythms, and conditions we normalize every day.

None of us are defined entirely by where we begin.

But we are shaped by what we choose to build from it.

Ana Intl is what I am choosing to build.

Thank you for being here.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima

Leave a comment

Ana Intl sits at the intersection of food, agriculture, human vitality, and the future of modern life.

If you’ve found your way here, you may already sense that something about modern life feels increasingly disconnected.

Subscribe now

The way we eat.
The way we work.
The way we build.
The pace we move at.
The environments we spend our lives inside.

Often, the friction shows up quietly at first:
burnout, chronic illness, fragmentation, exhaustion, loneliness, overstimulation, systems that seem productive on the surface yet leave people depleted over time.

This space exists for people who notice those patterns, even if they don’t yet have language for them.

Not to offer easy answers.

But to explore the conditions creating them in the first place.

My work began through food, agriculture, hospitality, and wellness, worlds where the relationship between environment and human well-being becomes impossible to ignore.

Working in regenerative agriculture especially changed the way I understood systems altogether.

On a farm, feedback is immediate.

Soil either gains life or loses it.
Water is either retained or wasted.
Food either nourishes or depletes.
Systems either regenerate over time or slowly break down beneath the surface.

That way of seeing eventually expanded far beyond agriculture.

Across leadership teams, organizations, hospitality environments, media production, wellness spaces, and modern culture, I kept observing many of the same underlying patterns repeating themselves in different forms.

The environments surrounding people shape far more than individual outcomes.

The quality of our food.
The health of our soil.
The pace of modern work.
The systems we normalize every day.

These conditions shape resilience, behavior, creativity, leadership, culture, and long-term well-being more than most modern institutions acknowledge.

Ana Intl emerged from that realization.

Not as a company focused only on agriculture or business strategy, but as a broader exploration into how healthier systems can support healthier ways of living and building in the modern world.

This publication is part of that exploration.

Here you’ll find essays, field notes, reflections, and interdisciplinary thinking exploring the relationship between food systems, human health, culture, leadership, resilience, and modern life itself.

Some pieces will be grounded in agriculture and food.
Others in leadership, culture, hospitality, or organizational environments.

But underneath all of them is the same question:

What conditions allow life to thrive over time?

I’m less interested in ideology than observation.
Less interested in optimization than coherence.
Less interested in trends than long-term vitality.

The work here is guided by a few simple beliefs:

that environments shape people

that nourishment is multidimensional

that burnout is often structural, not merely personal

that resilience cannot be separated from the systems surrounding us

that healthier systems create healthier outcomes over time

and that modern life will eventually require us to think more ecologically about how we live, work, eat, and build

This space is for people who build things.

For founders, farmers, creatives, operators, leaders, and thoughtful individuals trying to navigate an increasingly complex world with greater clarity, integrity, and long-term thinking.

I don’t believe we need more noise.

I believe we need better conditions for life.

With you in this exploration,

Chandrima Ornvold
Founder & CEO, Ana Intl

Follow the journey:

Services

Instagram

Facebook

LinkedIn

Leave a comment