Beyond Partisan Battles: Food, Health, and the Practice of Living Together
In my recent essays, I’ve explored how the old playbooks of activism no longer fit the collapsing terrain of our institutions, why food debates have become so polarizing, how food mirrors the wider metacrisis, and what’s at stake when science is confused with scientism. This piece continues the inquiry into what a post-partisan future might look like, especially through the lens of food and health.
When I write about “post-partisan,” I don’t mean a watered-down consensus or a mushy middle. Nor do I mean conformity at the expense of truth. Post-partisan doesn’t mean pretending differences don’t exist. It means creating a space where disagreement is possible without dehumanization, where falsehoods can be named without contempt, and where consequences of words and actions are seen clearly.
Think of how this works in a healthy relationship: love and respect don’t require agreement on everything. They require accountability, honesty, and boundaries. Societies are no different. We create social agreements not to erase difference, but to make living together possible.
Food and health show us what happens when these agreements collapse. We see people calling for censorship in the name of free speech. We see others dismissing science in the name of medical freedom. In both cases, the logic folds back on itself and what was meant as liberation becomes another form of domination.
A post-partisan food and health politics would refuse these false choices. It would recognize that farmers, doctors, parents, patients, and advocates each bring different truths and histories to the table. It would also insist that the conversation be grounded in reality, made visible in the biology of bodies, the ecology of soils, and the evidence of harm when our food environments are saturated with chemicals and ultra-processed calories.
This is not about silencing or shaming, but about weaving a space where difference can live alongside shared responsibility. That space is fragile. It takes practice, but it is possible.
Practicing Post-Partisan Dialogue in Food and Health
If we take post-partisan futures seriously, what might that practice look like? Here are a few starting points:
Name shared values before differences. Most parents, regardless of politics, want healthy kids. Most farmers want viable livelihoods. Most communities want safe food and water. Beginning there creates a floor of connection.
Agree on boundaries of harm. Not all views are equally valid. Freedom does not mean accepting food additives that harm children, or tolerating practices that poison soil and water. Naming boundaries together strengthens integrity.
Refuse false equivalence. Disagreement is not the same as denial. A parent questioning nutritional guidelines is not equivalent to a corporation funding disinformation. Being clear about distinctions avoids collapse into “both-sides-ism.”
Make space for lived experience. Science matters. So does the reality of a farmer’s field, or a child’s school lunch. Both need to be heard, not one at the expense of the other.
Keep complexity visible. Resist the temptation to boil everything down to villains and heroes. Complexity is uncomfortable, but oversimplification is what got us stuck in the first place.
Food and health offer both urgency and opportunity for this work. They force us to ask not only “What do we eat?” but “How do we live together?”
