A cooking class being taught at La Cocina. See more pictures of La Cocina’s chefs and fans.


Veronica Salazar was born in Mexico City, but after moving to San Francisco she couldn’t find a taqueria serving anything like the cuisine she grew up with. Working in restaurant kitchens during the week to support her family, she began selling her native foods at home on the weekends. Word spread, and the crowds grew to 40 customers, but she needed help to make her passion into a business.

In 2005, Salazar found the help she needed, starting El Hurache Loco—named after a Mexican delicacy shaped like the iconic sandal—in the commercial kitchen operated by a nonprofit called La Cocina. Initially a catering company, El Hurache Loco grew into a beloved food stand at area farmers markets. This fall, Salazar will open her own restaurant, a major victory for her and the organization that helped kickstart her business.

La Cocina’s mission is to transform talented home cooks into successful businesswomen by removing obstacles to entrepreneurship. Rooted in the Mission District of San Francisco, La Cocina provides commercial kitchen space and technical advice to help low-income, immigrant women start their own food businesses from square one. La Cocina offers the resources these women need to harness their talent and create successful businesses to support their families and contribute to the local economy, all while doing what they love.

The idea for La Cocina began in the late ’90s based on feedback from other nonprofit groups serving immigrants in the Mission District. Launched in 2005, La Cocina was born out of a paralyzing community-wide need for affordable commercial kitchen space. Women were selling delicious food out of their homes or on the streets, but were unable to take their businesses any further.

“The barriers to entering the food industry are high and they are real,” Caleb Zigas, the organization’s executive director, says. Commercial kitchen space is prohibitively expensive and La Cocina’s “clients face additional barriers like perception barriers, language barriers and class barriers” that make it extremely difficult to start and maintain a small business.

“La Cocina is creating equal opportunity for people that are making some of the best food, but can’t normally access the resources they need,” says Nick Heustis, regional marketing coordinator of Whole Foods, which carries products made by the organization’s chefs.

So La Cocina stepped in to fill the need, and over the last five years has dramatically increased the scope of their services and the number of clients they assist from six to more than 50. “Our priority for our businesses is to put them in a space where they can succeed long term. It is a long, intensive process,” says Zigas.

The business incubator program lasts anywhere from three to five years. During this period, La Cocina’s permanent staff and dedicated volunteers help business owners lay the foundation they need to survive in the cutthroat food industry. La Cocina prioritizes finding ways for their clients to launch businesses with very little capital and facilitates their access to investment, but the staff also helps program participants navigate treacherous legal regulations on food production, market their goods, and access new markets.

La Cocina’s volunteer network is a major contributor to the success of the businesses it supports. Professionals in a variety of fields—marketing, graphic design, legal, and finance—donate their time and expertise to help these businesses get off the ground.

The women who work with the group have become hallmarks in the San Francisco food community with food stands, food trucks, pop-up restaurants, and products sold in local Whole Foods markets. “The ultimate goal of La Cocina is to help these businesses become self-sufficient, and that success looks different for each business,” says Leticia Landa, Programs Manager at La Cocina. “For one business, success is a stand at a farmers market, for another it is their product carried in Whole Foods, for another it is a brick-and-mortar restaurant.”

“For us it is great, we come in at the end of that cycle and partner with La Cocina to bring the food to market,” says Heustis, the Whole Foods marketer. “La Cocina is also like a curator. People trust that what is coming out of La Cocina is good and has heart.”

Last weekend, the organization hosted their third annual Street Food Festival, a tradition that celebrates the organization’s businesses. “We think our clients bust their asses just like any other chef in this city, but those chefs tend to get respect whereas our clients tend to be lumped among ethnic eateries,” said Zigas. “There is something that feels innately unfair about that. Our festival is intended to flip that and to bring the community around this type of food, street food.”

By providing the support these unlikely food entrepreneurs need to start and maintain their own businesses, La Cocina is changing their lives, bettering the local community and breaking down long-upheld barriers. And a model that works in San Francisco could inspire similar nonprofits around the country.

There’s already a precedent for national attention: Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain recently visited one of La Cocina’s food trucks, Chaac Mool, for his show No Reservations. Chaac Mool’s owners, Luis and Maria de La Luz Vazquez, began selling Mayan-inspired Mexican cuisine out of their Tenderloin apartment six years ago before partnering with the nonprofit.

“La Cocina gave us this food truck and our business has expanded because of the truck,” Margarita Hernandez of Chaac Mool says. “Our dream is to establish a restaurant here in the city.”

photo by Emily Voigtlander

  • Ancient teeth reveal clues to the environment humans’ early ancestors evolved in millions of years ago
    Photo credit: Zelalem BedasoChemicals in your tooth enamel record evidence of your diet that can last millions of years.

    Teeth are like tiny biological time capsules. They tell stories about ancient diets and environments long after their owners have died and landscapes have changed.

    After bones break down, tooth enamel stays hard and unchanged, even in fossilized teeth that have been buried under sediment and rock for millions of years and are now being uncovered by erosion or excavation.

    Tooth enamel forms when an animal is young, and it remains chemically stable for the rest of that animal’s life. The food an animal eats and the water it drinks during its youth leave chemical signals within the enamel.

    Because of that, hidden within the enamel of fossilized teeth, scientists can find traces of extinct forests, expanding savanna grasslands, shifting climates and evolving animal communities.

    A group of oryx, a type of antelope, on a dry landscape.
    A small group of oryx forage in the open savanna of Awash National Park in Ethiopia, with scattered acacia trees and dry grasses illustrating the park’s semi-arid environment. Zelalem Bedaso

    Over the past 30 years, my colleagues and I have been analyzing chemical traces in fossil teeth from Ethiopia’s Afar region in the East African Rift Valley – often referred to as the cradle of humanity – to uncover what animals ate there millions of years ago, around the time early human ancestors were evolving, and what the world looked like around them.

    These clues from ancient meals are enabling scientists to reconstruct pictures of entire ecosystems, including forests, wetlands and grasslands that existed at the time. It’s a reminder that in a very real sense, organisms are what they eat.

    Traces of ancient diets in fossil teeth

    To determine which plants ancient animals ate, my colleagues and I collect a small amount of enamel powder from fossilized teeth. We then analyze this powder in the laboratory using specialized instruments that detect chemical signals preserved in the enamel.

    Trees and grasses have different ways of using photosynthesis to convert sunlight into energy. These methods leave distinct chemical patterns in plant tissues, which then become incorporated into the teeth of animals that eat those plants.

    By examining these chemical patterns in tooth enamel, we can determine whether animals primarily fed on trees and shrubs or on grass, providing insight into the vegetation that once covered the ancient landscape.

    A scientist looks at a sample with layers of rock in the background.
    The author conducts fieldwork in the East African Rift, collecting samples from ancient lake and river deposits. Courtesy of Zelalem Bedaso

    We can then figure out how an environment changed over time by collecting fossil teeth from different rock layers. Each layer formed at a different time in the past, so teeth found in deeper layers are typically older than those closer to the surface.

    By analyzing tooth enamel from fossils across these layers, we can compare the chemical signals preserved in the teeth and see how animal diets and the plants growing in the landscape changed through time.

    Adding that knowledge to data from different types of fossils, we can track long-term shifts in vegetation, climate and ecosystems.

    A changing landscape in the last 4 million years

    Four million years ago, the Afar region looked very different from the dry landscape you will see there today.

    Fossils, including tooth enamel, reveal that the area supported a diverse range of environments. Rivers flowed through wooded areas, lakes were scattered across the landscape, and grassy plains stretched across the basin.

    A map of the East African Rift Valley
    Three tectonic plates are pulling apart at the Afar region, near the Red Sea. Val Rim/Wikimedia CommonsCC BY-SA

    Fossilized teeth from animals like antelopes, giraffes, pigs, horses, hippos and elephants show a wide range of diets. Some animals browsed on leaves and shrubs, while others grazed on grass in open habitats.

    The chemical signals in the teeth indicate that grasslands were expanding at the time, but forests still played an important role. They show that animals moved through this environment and adapted to the food sources around them.

    A dry valley landscape with layers in the rock.
    Ethiopia’s Afar Depression and Awash Valley, shaped by rifting and erosion, are among the world’s most important regions for fossil discoveries of human ancestors. Some of those fossils date back 3 million to 4 million years. Zelalem Bedaso

    Around 2 million to 3 million years ago, the environment shifted more drastically toward open grasslands.

    The East African Rift Valley gets its shape from three tectonic plates that have been slowly pulling apart. This tectonic activity has changed the landscape over time, altering the regional climate and drainage. Two to three million years ago, it helped shift environments from more wooded habitats to a mix of grasslands and open savannas.

    Animals that relied on grass flourished, and the populations of those that didn’t adapt declined. Horses and certain antelopes, for example, developed teeth that could grind tough, gritty plants. This adaptation is recorded on their enamel.

    Early humans in a mosaic world

    Early human ancestors, like the famous “Lucy,” whose skeleton was discovered in the Afar region, lived in this dynamic landscape.

    Fossil teeth from Australopithecus afraensis, an early human that lived in eastern Africa between about 2.9 million and 3.8 million years ago, indicate that early human relatives did not rely heavily on grass. Instead, the chemical signal in their enamel indicates mixed diets and dietary flexibility, which included fruits, leaves and roots, depending on what was available.

    In a landscape that combined woodland patches and open savanna, that adaptability may have been key to survival.

    This period of environmental change coincided with several important evolutionary developments and morphological changes in pre-humans. Early human ancestors were walking upright. Brain size also gradually increased, allowing for more complex behavior and problem-solving.

    During this time, early humans began making and using stone tools, marking a major step in technological innovation and helping them adapt to changing environments.

    Diet shapes destiny

    The dietary changes in the East African Rift Valley over the past 4 million years, documented through tooth enamel, are providing important clues for reconstructing the environment in which humans’ ancestors lived and how those environments changed.

    They also show that species that adjusted their diets as landscapes changed were the ones most likely to survive.

    This ongoing research helps explore profound questions of how environmental shifts shaped life on Earth, including human trajectories. And that is helping humanity unlock its collective past.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • It’s OK to love all the bees (the honey bees, too)
    Photo credit: Sam Droege/USGS Bee Lab via FlickrThis wild ground bee, Andrena nothoscordi, is typically found in the U.S. Midwest and Southeast and loves false garlic flowers.
    ,

    It’s OK to love all the bees (the honey bees, too)

    The real threat to bees is how we treat the land.

    North America’s bee populations are in trouble, but don’t blame the honey bees. While some people argue that an overabundance of managed honey bees – those raised to help pollinate crops and produce honey – is causing native bees to disappear, the evidence doesn’t support the claim.

    What is true is that populations of many species of bees, including honey bees, are struggling.

    Half of all honey bee colonies die every winter in the United States, on average. Commercial beekeepers experienced their highest losses on record – more than 60% of their colonies – in the winter of 2024-25. Overall, one-fifth of pollinators in North America are considered to be at risk for extinction due in large part to habitat loss, rising temperatures, extreme weather, diseases and pesticides.

    We study bees and other vital pollinators, and we can tell you that there are good reasons to love all the bees. In fact, they’re essential.

    A bee on a flower
    A honey bee collects pollen from a flower. Bob Peterson/FlickrCC BY

    Why care about pollinators?

    Bees help farmers grow the foods people love to eat, everything from apples to almonds.

    Along with other pollinators – such as flies, butterflies and moths – bees help nearly 80% of flowering plants produce fruit and seeds, which in turn support birds and other wildlife.

    About 75% of the world’s agricultural crops, including vegetables, fruits and tree nuts, benefit from pollinators. Additionally, pollinators contribute to production of feed for livestock and fiber crops, such as cotton.

    In the United States, pollination by insects contributes $34 billion to the economy.

    Among the pollinators, honey bees are the most important for agriculture crops. Managed honey bees, which beekeepers can move from field to field, are particularly essential in intensively farmed areas that lack the natural habitat to support wild bees.

    So, why are people concerned about honey bees?

    Honey bees were introduced to North America by European settlers in the early 1600s.

    Since honey bees are not a native species, the most common concern you might hear is that they will outcompete wild bees for pollen and nectar. This is typically portrayed as a numbers game: If resources are limited, the more bees present on the landscape, the less food there is to go around.

    Honey bees live in large social colonies and are adept at capitalizing on high-quality patches of flowers, leading to the concern that this species in particular may have a rapid, outsized effect on native bees that share the same food.

    The queen bee is marked with nontoxic green paint to make her easy to find when examining the health of this Apis mellifera European honey bee hive in Maryland.
    The queen bee is marked with nontoxic green paint to make her easy to find when examining the health of this Apis mellifera European honey bee hive in Maryland. David Illig via FlickrCC BY-NC-SA

    Managed bees can also carry viruses and other pathogens that may infect native bee species. Because viruses are shared among colony members, viruses can persist in managed honey bee colonies and then be spread to other bees that forage on the same flowers.

    Scientists and farmers also have a concern about economic sustainability if farms are too reliant on honey bees alone for crop pollination. Threats to honey bee health and high colony mortality in the United States could put crops at risk if other pollinators aren’t in the vicinity to do the job.

    Why don’t studies find a honey bee impact on native bees?

    Humans actually know little about bee interactions. The U.S. has more than 4,000 native bee species, but there is enough data to estimate population sizes and ranges for less than half of them. Meaningful data examining the effects of honey bees on other species are even more scarce.

    In a recent analysis, we found that only 15% of 116 published studies on resource competition involving honey bees measure how competition from honey bees affects the survival, reproductive output and long-term population trends of native species.

    A bee with its face in a flower.
    Bee populations face several threats, including pesticides and losing habitat to urbanization and agriculture. Andony Melathopoulos

    The majority of published studies on honey bee and wild bee competition address different versions of a narrow question: Do honey bees and native bees visit the same plants?

    Because honey bees are “super generalists” that thrive worldwide well beyond their native range, most scientists would predict that the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.”

    However, about half of the research suggests that honey bees don’t change the way native bees go about their day at all. From the perspective of a wild bee, the honey bees simply don’t exist in their world.

    Different bee species can coexist with very little evidence of direct interaction. An analysis of bee communities measured across diverse agricultural, urban, grassland and forested environments found the abundance of honey bees and the abundance of native bees were positively associated about five times as often as they were negatively associated. In other words, rather than landscapes supporting one bee species at the expense of another, the same habitats support both.

    A map shows bee species everywhere, but the most species in the Southwest and Midwest.
    Bees species can be found just about everywhere in the U.S., as this map, modeled from 3,158 species found in museum collections, shows. But some regions, such as the Southwest deserts, are particularly rich in bee species, with the color scale representing the estimated number of species. Paige R. Chesshire, et al., 2023CC BY

    Calls to restrict honey bees from certain locations also often miss a key reality: Native bee hot spots and urban and commercial beekeeping rarely overlap.

    Beekeeping is anchored in agricultural lands. North America’s rarest bees thrive in environments like the Sonoran Desert – habitats that are poorly suited for managed colonies.

    If competition occurs, it is typically the product of agriculture practices that strip the land of flowering plants that bees need.

    Research that has artificially introduced hives into natural areas like the high Sierra – places beekeepers don’t typically go – has generated competition that left less pollen and nectar for the native bees. But frequently competition involves common native bees that are not under threat.

    A chunky bee on a flower with pollen on its legs.
    Bumble bees transport pollen on their legs as they move from flower to flower, bringing some of it home while pollinating plants in the process. Andony Melathopoulos

    So, if honey bees aren’t to blame, what is?

    The top drivers of pollinator declines are considered to be land use – the spread of cities and agriculture, as well as the way land is managed – along with rising temperatures, extreme weather and pesticide use.

    Agriculture and urbanization reduce the amount and diversity of flowering plants, and droughts can reduce plant flowering and the resources bees rely on. Pesticides can reduce bees’ ability to lay eggs and care for their offspring, or they can kill bees outright.

    The U.S. Geological Survey’s Native Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab tracks bee populations in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region. Studies using its data have found that urbanization and weather changes have been the major drivers of changes in wild bee abundance and diversity in that region.

    As temperatures rise, wild bee populations are expected to decline there. Warmer winters mean bees active in spring emerge earlier from their nests, and increased spring rain and temperature fluctuations can limit their ability to feed their offspring, meaning fewer bees.

    The western bumble bee, Bombus occidentalis, was once widespread and abundant across western North America, but it has been in decline since the late 1990s. Long-term monitoring of its populations from 1998 to 2020 shows the primary reasons are land management changes, increasing temperature, drought and pesticide use.

    What can you do to support pollinators?

    The biggest threat to pollinators is the disappearing variety of flowering plants.

    You can help reverse this by filling your garden with more flowering plants, trees and shrubs to give bees, butterflies and other pollinators a variety of food sources.

    Three bees on a flower
    Planting wildflower gardens in your yard can help many kinds of pollinators, including bees. Clare Rittschof

    You can also advocate for bee-friendly behavior in your community, such as creating pollinator habitats in public and private spaces and reducing the use of harsh pesticides and herbicides. Planting more flowers in parks and along roadsides, and protecting wildlands where the rarest native bees live, can help keep these wonderful species thriving.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • It’s a myth that baby boys are less social than girls – a new look at decades of research shows all babies are born to connect
    Photo credit: Jutta Klee/fStop via Getty ImagesBabies – whether boy or girl – look to adults for care and comfort.

    Girls and boys are equally social at birth.

    This finding, based on my team’s synthesis of six decades of research, may come as a surprise. Gender differences in adults’ social sensitivity are famous. Women outperform men at recognizing faces and emotions, and they score modestly higher on measures of empathy. They are likelier to take jobs working with people, such as in teaching and health care, whereas men are likelier to choose jobs working with “things,” such as in engineering or plumbing.

    But how early do these differences emerge, and are they a matter of evolution or social learning? For years, some theorists have argued the former: that the difference is innate, built into the brain hardware of girls and boys through Darwinian selection. But this perspective relies almost exclusively on just one high-profile, yet deeply flawed, study of 102 newborns.

    Mining the neonatal research trove

    Realizing that psychologists have been studying newborns’ social orientation for decades, my team of neurobehavioral researchers and I set out to collect all the data – every published study that has compared boys’ and girls’ attention to social stimuli in the first month of life. Our goal was to better test the hypothesis of an inborn gender difference in attention to, or interest in, other people.

    Our study was a systematic review, meaning we searched through every published report indexed in both medical and psychological databases from the 1960s onward.

    We cast a wide net, looking for any research that measured newborns’ attention to or preference for human faces or voices and that reported the data separately by gender. Importantly, we did not limit our search to the terms “gender difference” or “sex difference,” since these would bias the collection by potentially excluding studies that failed to find boy-girl differences..

    As expected, we unearthed dozens of studies comparing newborn boys and girls on social perception: 40 experiments reported in 31 peer-reviewed studies and involving nearly 2,000 infants. The majority of studies measured the amount of time newborns spent looking at faces, either at a single face or comparing a baby’s preference between two faces of differing social value, such as their own mother versus a woman who was a stranger.

    Our data collection was large enough that we were able to carry out meta-analysis, which is a statistical method for combining the results of many studies. Meta-analysis essentially turns many small studies into a single large one. For studies measuring neonates’ looking time at faces, this included 667 infants, half of them boys and half of them girls.

    a blue and a red distribution curve overlap almost completely making it look mostly purple
    Newborn boys and girls are similarly attentive to faces, with the distribution of time they spend looking almost completely overlapping. Data from Karson et al. plotted using tool at sexdifference.org.

    The result was clear: nearly identical social perception between baby boys and girls. There was no significant difference between genders overall, nor was there a difference when we focused only on studies measuring babies’ gaze duration on a single face, or only on studies measuring babies’ gaze preference between two different faces.

    Our search also netted two other types of studies. One focused on a remarkable behavior: newborns’ tendency to start crying when they hear another baby cry. An early study found this “contagious crying” to be marginally more common in girls. But when we performed meta-analysis on data across nine contagious-crying experiments, including 387 infants, there was again no solid evidence for male-female difference.

    The last dataset we analyzed compared babies’ orientation to both social and inanimate objects using a newborn behavior assessment scale developed by legendary pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton. Across four studies involving 619 infants, girls did pay somewhat greater attention to the social stimuli (a human face or voice), but they also paid more attention to the inanimate stimuli (a ball or the sound of a rattle).

    In other words, girls in this test seemed a bit more attuned to every type of stimulus, perhaps due to a general maturity advantage that they hold from fetal development through puberty. But there was nothing special about their interest in people, according to the Brazelton assessment.

    Boys, too, prefer faces

    Our findings align with other well-designed studies, including one finding that 5-month-old boys and girls equally prefer looking at faces over toy cars or other objects, and another finding that 2-month-old boys actually perform better than girls at detecting faces. So taken together, current research dispels a common myth that girls are innately “hardwired” to be more social than boys in early life.

    The truth is that all babies are wired for social engagement at birth. Boys and girls are both primed to pay attention to human faces and voices, which, after all, belong to those who will keep them fed, safe and comforted.

    Despite their best intentions, most parents cannot help but stereotype their infants by gender and begin treating boys and girls differently early on. Presuming that sons are already less social is not a recipe for remedying this bias. Our research can help dispel this myth, giving every child, male or female, the best possible start for connecting with and caring about other people.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.

Well-being

Licensed therapist shares 6 signs you’re doing a lot better than you think you are

Ideas

Career expert shares polite but effective way to reclaim credit when someone steals your idea