Culturally familiar foods and mental resilience during long-duration space missions: a narrative review and conceptual framework

1 Introduction

Food in long-duration missions must do more than meet energy and nutrient requirements. In an isolated, confined and operationally demanding environment, meals also structure daily routines, provide sensory variation and create opportunities for social interaction. Foods associated with an astronaut’s cultural background may additionally evoke familiarity, identity and continuity with life on Earth. These functions suggest that cultural familiarity could be relevant to psychological resilience, but the proposition has not yet been tested directly in spaceflight.

The potential relationship between food and mental wellbeing involves distinct but interacting mechanisms. Dietary composition may influence neuroendocrine, immune and metabolic signalling through the microbiota-gut-brain axis, whereas a food’s familiarity and cultural meaning may act through memory, emotion, perceived control, belonging and social connection. These pathways should not be conflated: a culturally meaningful food is not necessarily nutritionally optimal, and a nutritionally optimal food may provide little cultural or emotional value.

Current space-food research recognises palatability, variety and acceptability as important for intake and crew health, while terrestrial studies associate culturally familiar foods with identity, comfort and social connection. Nevertheless, direct evidence that such foods improve astronaut mental resilience is lacking. Future exploration missions further constrain mass, volume, shelf life, preparatiin time, crop production and resupply, making any culturally responsive food strategy an engineering as well as a behavioural-health problem (Douglas et al., 2020; Raleng et al., 2024).

This review addresses the following question: through which biological and psychosocial pathways might culturally familiar foods support mental resilience during long-duration space missions, and what evidence and operational constraints must be addressed before this proposition can inform space-food-system design?

1.1 Review approach

This article presents a narrative, hypothesis-generating review rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis. Its purpose is to integrate relevant knowledge from several intersecting fields, including spaceflight and space nutrition, isolated and confined environments, mental health, cultural food practices, and the microbiota–gut–brain axis. The literature was identified iteratively on the basis of its relevance to the review question, without using a predefined systematic search strategy, formal screening protocol or exhaustive set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Peer-reviewed publications were prioritised, while authoritative space-agency and technical sources were consulted for operational and historical information. Particular attention was given to evidence concerning mission-related stressors; food intake, acceptability and palatability; culturally familiar and comfort foods; psychological resilience and wellbeing; crew interaction; and biological gut–brain mechanisms. Evidence from terrestrial populations and analogue environments was included to inform the conceptual framework and generate testable hypotheses, while recognising its limited transferability to highly selected and trained astronaut crews.

1.2 Conceptual scope and definitions

The review first characterises mission-related psychological stressors and existing countermeasures, then defines the relevant food concepts and evaluates biological and psychosocial pathways. It next considers evidence from terrestrial settings, analogues and spaceflight; examines operational constraints on culturally responsive food provision; and concludes with a conceptual framework, limitations and testable research priorities.

2 Psychological challenges in extreme environments

2.1 Mental stressors on long-duration space missions

Long-duration space missions expose crews to sustained operational and environmental demands. NASA has used a duration exceeding 30 days as one operational definition, although exploration missions may extend for many months or years (Kahn et al., 2014; Uri, 2020b). In this review, ‘long-duration space mission’ denotes a mission sufficiently prolonged for isolation, confinement, limited resupply, communication delay and menu fatigue to become material behavioural-health and food-system considerations.

Spaceflight is an extreme environment requiring physiological and psychological adaptation. Relevant exposures include microgravity, radiation, altered light-dark cycles, restricted habitable volume, isolation, confinement, operational risk and, beyond low-Earth orbit, delayed communication and limited resupply. The present review focuses on the psychological and interpersonal consequences most directly relevant to food experience and crew resilience (Kanas and Manzey, 2008).

Psychological and interpersonal stressors include social isolation, confinement, monotony, high workload, disrupted sleep, cultural differences and interpersonal tension. These stressors interact and may influence mood, cognition, performance, appetite and team cohesion (Kanas and Manzey, 2008).

Responses may occur at psychological, behavioural, performance, interpersonal and psychiatric levels, including sleep disturbance, impaired attention, anxiety, depressed mood and conflict. Their expression varies across individuals, mission phases and operational contexts (Kanas and Manzey, 2008).

Many of these stressors are not unique to spaceflight and are also observed in isolated, confined and extreme terrestrial environments. Such analogues are informative, but they do not reproduce the complete exposure profile, risk, crew selection or operational constraints of an actual mission (Suedfeld and Steel, 2000). Historical observations of adaptation aboard a nuclear submarine provide a terrestrial comparison for confined crews (Earls, 1969); their transferability to spaceflight remains limited.

2.1.1 Social isolation, confinement and monotony

Restricted social contact, limited privacy and reduced sensory novelty may contribute to homesickness, anxiety, depressed mood, sleep disturbance and interpersonal strain. External views, private space and varied activities may mitigate some effects (Cinelli, 2020; Suedfeld and Steel, 2000; Wildman et al., 2023; Yin et al., 2023; Earls, 1969).

2.1.2 High workload

Where boredom can lead to mental problems, the same is true for excessive workload. Important tasks with high risks require precision (Lin, 2019). Some tasks must be finished at moments when astronauts would normally be asleep on Earth. This can distort their biorhythm and cause sleep deprivation (Oluwafemi et al., 2021). The combination of both aspects can create emotional distress and anxiety (Lin, 2019).

2.1.3 Sleep problems

Sleep disorders are also stressors in themselves and give rise to mental issues. Sleep duration and quality are decreased due to high workload, changes in sleep patterns, absence of light cycles, and uncomfortable ambient temperatures. Lack of decent sleep has negative consequences, such as bad health, worse working memory, low energy level, no motivation and concentration, and tensions with crew members (Wu et al., 2018).

2.1.4 Interpersonal conflicts

Space missions commonly have a diverse crew consisting of people of different genders, cultural backgrounds, languages, career backgrounds and countries. Those people have to spend a lot of time together in a confined space within an extreme environment. Interpersonal irritations and problems can arise after a while, which can affect group cohesion and performance (Kanas, 2005; Kanas and Manzey, 2008).

The above shows that various stressors arise during long-duration space missions because of the specific extreme conditions. These different factors are interrelated, creating a vicious circle that encourages stress and mental problems. Because the success of a space mission depends amongst others on the mental health of astronauts, it is crucial to make every effort to maintain and promote general wellbeing (Kanas and Manzey, 2008).

2.2 Countermeasures to support astronauts’ mental wellbeing

Countermeasures include mission-specific preparation, psychological skills training, communication with family and ground teams, environmental and habitability design, structured leisure, meaningful work, sleep management and in-flight psychological support (Monzani et al., 2019).

Pre-flight preparation can strengthen emotion regulation, coping and team skills, although it cannot anticipate every event. During exploration missions, communication delay and reduced real-time ground support will increase the importance of crew autonomy and self-management (Monzani et al., 2019).

Below, we refer to some concrete steps taken or proposed to deal with the various stressors and mental problems.

To cope with social isolation, astronauts can reorganize their schedules to communicate more often with friends, family or public figures (Oluwafemi et al., 2021).

In terms of mitigating the feeling of confinement, it is suggested to introduce immersive virtual reality experiences for astronauts. Virtual reality can simulate any terrestrial environment that astronauts may desire to visit or exercise in. One concrete project, ANSIBLE, even creates a virtual world where it would be possible to communicate with relatives on Earth. With augmented reality a person can still see his real environment, but a virtual overlap is added. For example, projecting a virtual view from on Earth through an existing spacecraft window (Salamon et al., 2018). Given the ability to escape the space environment and be in confidential surroundings, virtual and augmented reality can reduce astronauts’ stress (Wu et al., 2016; Salamon et al., 2018).

To break the monotony, astronauts must be able to do meaningful work and also enjoy entertainment (Oluwafemi et al., 2021).

Crew members are often unaware of the underlying reason for their research. Nevertheless, awareness would lead astronauts to feel more personally connected to their jobs, which could increase their mental wellbeing (Wildman et al., 2023). To give astronauts a feeling of being useful, they should get the chance to undertake their own small projects. (Peldszus et al., 2014).

Structured leisure and varied self-selected activities may interrupt monotony and support positive affect. Diversity of activities can function as a constructive distraction in confined interplanetary missions, while fresh food and meal preparation may provide additional novelty and agency (Salamon et al., 2018; Peldszus et al., 2014; Oluwafemi et al., 2021). The diversitydistractiondependency framework likewise identifies varied activities and social interdependence as potentially positive features of interplanetary crew life (Tafforin, 2024).

To improve astronauts’ sleep, research has shown that bedroom location and environmental factors are important. The bedroom should be private, quiet, cool and dark to achieve optimal sleep (Caddick et al., 2017).

To maintain an optimal relationship between crew members, pre-flight training and (psychological) support during the flight must be provided. Astronauts should be selected for both their professional and social skills. In-flight support can address interpersonal problems early and prevent situations from escalating (Kanas, 1987; Kanas et al., 2009; NordSpace, 2020; Yin et al., 2023).

2.3 The role of food in promoting mental resilience

Food should be considered a potential complement to, not a replacement for, established behavioural-health countermeasures. Meals are recurrent events that can provide pleasure, temporal structure, sensory variation, social interaction and opportunities for personal choice.

Some research on diverse aspects of space missions does refer to the importance of food, but this remains rather limited. A few studies do specifically address the topic of food, but not its relationship with mental health.

Douglas et al. (2020) identify food as one of the few continuously available onboard resources that can influence both physiology and behaviour. During exploration missions, the psychological benefit associated with fresh-food resupply will be reduced or absent; therefore, acceptability, variety and meaningful meal experiences must be designed into the food system rather than treated as incidental features.

Fresh foods, when operationally available, may introduce variety and enable creative meal preparation, potentially reducing monotony and supporting wellbeing. These benefits remain plausible rather than established clinical effects (Kanas et al., 2009; Peldszus et al., 2014; Pandith et al., 2023).

Furthermore, Tang et al. (2021) argue that the taste, smell, texture and visual aspects of food can positively impact astronauts’ mental health. Consuming delicious food creates enjoyment, reduces stress and boredom, and improves bonds with others (Tang et al., 2021).

In conclusion, food is important not only to get the necessary nutrients, but also to promote sleep, mental wellbeing, crew optimism and a successful mission (Oluwafemi et al., 2021).

Available evidence supports food as a plausible contributor to psychological wellbeing, but direct causal evidence linking culturally familiar foods to astronaut mental resilience is not yet available (Pandith et al., 2023).

Any proposed benefit must be evaluated within the constraints of a space food system. Measures that are feasible during short missions or aboard the International Space Station cannot automatically be transferred to exploration missions with prolonged storage, restricted resources and no regular resupply.

3 Relation between food, culture and mental wellbeing

This section distinguishes the principal food-related concepts and examines two categories of pathway: biological effects related to dietary composition and psychosocial effects related to familiarity, identity, memory, agency and shared meals.

3.1 Gut-brain axis

Dietary patterns can influence mood, cognition, immune function and metabolic health. One relevant biological framework is the microbiota-gut-brain axis, a bidirectional communication system connecting the gastrointestinal tract, resident microorganisms and the central nervous system (Carter, 2020; Cryan et al., 2019).

The gut-brain axis is a bidirectional continuous communication network between the gut and the brain. The gut with its microbiota has an impact on people’s mental health, mood and cognition, and the brain will in turn influence the gut function. This relationship manifests itself anatomically, namely, a link between the enteric (the gut) and central (brain and spinal cord) nervous systems via the vagus nerve, as well as on the metabolic/humoral, endocrine, neuronal and immune pathways (Appleton, 2018; Cryan et al., 2019; Sah et al., 2024).

In the last decades, there has even been a reference to the ‘microbiota-gut-brain axis’. Recent studies have shown that microbiota, i.e., the vast numbers of microbes in the gut, are a main driver of the gut-brain axis (Cryan et al., 2019). It is thanks to this axis that microbiota influence the brain and behavior of people (Cryan et al., 2019). Since nutrition affects microbiota which in turn impact brain function and development, there is a link between food and mental wellbeing (Hattori and Yamashiro, 2021). Earlier work on nutritional modulation of neural function provides historical context for the biological pathway discussed here (Morley et al., 1988).

Hereafter, ‘microbiota-gut-brain axis’ is used when microbial involvement is specifically discussed; ‘gut-brain axis’ denotes the broader bidirectional system.

The brain is an essential element of the gut-brain axis and consists of three interconnected parts: the limbic system, cerebral cortex, and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. That first part receives signals from other brain areas, such as the hippocampus in charge of a variety of behavioral acts (Hattori and Yamashiro, 2021).

The enteric nervous system resides in the intestinal wall, and is also a key component of the gut-brain connection. It is part of the autonomic nervous system which controls and regulates our internal organs subconsciously. The many nerve cells within the gut can control digestive processes and analyze and send information from the gut to other parts of our body, independently of the central nervous system. Therefore, the gut has been named as the “second brain” (Hadhazy, 2010; Carter, 2020; Pathak and Banerjee, 2024).

As mentioned before, the gut with its microbiota will affect cognitive activities through anatomical and four other pathways (neuronal, metabolic/humoral, immune, endocrinal).

Firstly, a direct link between the gut and the brain is made by the vagus nerve. This anatomical connection can play a role in brain function.

Secondly, the neuronal pathway is important to mental health. The enteric nervous system releases neurotransmitters produced in the brain, such as gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), serotonin, and dopamine. They have a positive impact on our behavior, sleep, mood, appetite, energy and calmness. 90%–95% of serotonin is produced in the gut (Appleton, 2018; Rutsch et al., 2020; Verma et al., 2024).

Both brain and intestinal neurotransmitters are impacted by the gut microbiota (Hattori and Yamashiro, 2021). Dysregulation of these is associated with cognitive and mental diseases like stress, depression and anxiety (Pathak and Banerjee, 2024; Sah et al., 2024).

In addition, the gut produces metabolites, most importantly the short-chain fatty acids. Those acids can pass the blood-brain barrier and so impact brain development and function. They regulate the intern brain balance, adapt behaviors, and enhance memory and learning. Moreover, short-chain fatty acids help to arrange the synthesis of the abovementioned intestinal ‘feel good’ hormone serotonin (Appleton, 2018; Pathak and Banerjee, 2024).

Further, the gut microbiota help to regulate the immune system. Abnormal microbiota activate immune responses, disrupting the enteric nervous system and causing brain-gut and gut-brain issues. Immunity problems are linked to cognitive and neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson and Alzheimer (Appleton, 2018; Pathak and Banerjee, 2024).

Finally, through the endocrinal pathway, the gut and its microbiota influence the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Endocrinal cells, such as galanin, are important for critical neurobiological functions like mood, sleep/wake cycle and feeding. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, part of the brain, is then related to stress reactions and mental issues (Appleton, 2018; Pathak and Banerjee, 2024).

The intestinal microbiota, the gut, the brain and the gut-brain axis, are influenced by different factors like sex, age, genetics, and diet (Makris et al., 2021). Diet modification can create a change in the microbiota and impact cognitive and mental health. For example, eating vegetables, fruit, fish, and whole grains can decline depression (Makris et al., 2021). Generally, a diet high in fruits, vegetables, fibers, probiotics and fermented foods is advantageous for diverse and healthy intestinal microbiota (Pathak and Banerjee, 2024).

Consequently, a good knowledge of food sources is a relevant starting point for learning which ingredients, how and to what extent, impact mental wellbeing (Briguglio et al., 2018).

Analyzing which specific building blocks of ingredients impact the brain is beyond the scope of this paper, but we will look at how and why culturally familiar foods can have an impact.

In summary, the gut-brain axis links the gut, its microbiota, and the brain using various mechanisms. Nutrition has a considerable impact on the microbiota, and, as a result, affects psychological wellbeing and cognitive functions.

3.2 Culturally familiar foods and mental wellbeing

Culturally familiar foods are foods, ingredients, flavours or preparation practices recognised by an individual as part of their cultural experience and identity. They may overlap with traditional or comfort foods, but the terms are not interchangeable. A traditional food is linked to a community’s transmitted practices; a comfort food is defined primarily by its capacity to evoke comfort or positive autobiographical associations; palatability refers to sensory acceptability; and food preference reflects an individual’s relative choice among options.

Table 1.

Wellbeing is a concept without a general definition, but is accepted as being based on diverse factors and dependent on each person’s view. The feeling of wellbeing takes into account components such as positive and negative emotions, physical health, global life evaluation, social activities, … (Ares et al., 2016).

In 2017, Spence published research on the impact of comfort foods on our state of mind. ‘Comfort foods’ include food from childhood and/or traditional home-cooked meals, creating a sense of nostalgia. The understanding of this concept is personal and depends on cultural background (e.g., eating turkey at Thanksgiving) (Spence, 2017). The memories and emotions associated with comfort food can reduce stress and loneliness, improving mental wellbeing, more than the taste itself (Spence, 2017). A public-health account also describes how culturally familiar foods may support connection and well-being in terrestrial settings (To, 2024); it does not establish an astronaut-specific effect.

A 2020 study highlights the connection between cultural food and the mental health of U.S. minority college students who live away from their families, experience environmental changes, and have limited financial resources to purchase cultural foods. Students reported anxiety, sadness or stress since the lack of cultural foods and foodways caused a loss of identity. Conversely, access to familiar meals created nostalgia and happiness, calm, comfortable, safe, among other effects feelings (Wright et al., 2021).

A recent study equally finds a relationship between cultural foods and mental health among immigrants in the Western world. Immigrants in Western societies often suffer psychological issues such as anxiety, mood disorders, depression and mental distress caused by different factors. On the one hand, cultural foods are a mandatory part of a healthy diet (e.g., nutrients). On the other hand, they strengthen identity, nurturing a sense of belonging and reducing stress (Elshahat et al., 2023).

For example, Punjabi immigrants in Canada confirmed the nutritional and mental benefits of traditional meals like roti and subjee (Ristovski-Slijepcevic et al., 2008). Similarly, Chinese cooking culture and halal/vegetarian foods enhance wellbeing (Lu et al., 2008).

Studies of students, migrants and other populations separated from familiar food environments can inform the proposed psychosocial pathways, but they cannot establish effects in astronauts. Astronauts are highly selected, trained and medically monitored; mission risk, team structure, workload and food-system constraints also differ substantially from terrestrial settings. Accordingly, these studies are used here to generate mechanisms and hypotheses, not to estimate spaceflight effect sizes.

Findings obtained with this instrument suggest that preparing and eating home-cooked meals may relate to stress reduction, concentration, self-esteem, belonging, comfort, trust and nostalgia. The proposed benefits are mainly psychosocial and relational, rather than evidence of a specific nutritional or microbiome-mediated effect (Yasmeen et al., 2024).

The Culinary Comfort and Connection Index is a multidimensional tool to measure the relationship between personal food preferences, mainly for traditional homemade meals, and overall health. Preparing and eating home-cooked meals can reduce stress, improve focus and support self-esteem, while creating a sense of belonging, comfort, trust and nostalgia. It strengthens relationships and promotes conversations within families. As with Spence (2017), the link between traditional meals and wellbeing springs more from the positive emotions, social bonds and sense of stability they generate, rather than their nutritional or sensory qualities (Yasmeen et al., 2024).

Even NASA attaches importance to deploying comfort foods during difficult situations, such as long-duration space missions. Presumably, such meals are exactly what astronauts need during stressful expeditions, as they provide a sense of comfort and a familiar flavor. Cultural food brings crew members closer together, allowing them to talk about their culture and background (Crespo, 2023). The Italian Space Food initiative illustrates an effort to bring nationally familiar cuisine aboard the International Space Station (Italian Embassy of Washington, 2023).

Other studies indicate that cultural background shapes food choice and perceptions of wellbeing, although they do not directly test whether culturally familiar meals improve mental health (Ares et al., 2016; Cunha et al., 2018).

Table 2.

3.3 Food preferences and adaptability in extreme environments

The link between culturally traditional diets and mental health is strengthened by the fact that, by nature, people prefer foods that fit their cultural habits and will reach for comfort food in certain, often difficult, situations.

When people find themselves in extreme environments for long periods, they face mental challenges where they would normally seek comfort food if available. The question arises of how people cope with this and to what extent they can and want to adjust their preferences.

Food consumption is not reducible to nutrient delivery. Eating also carries sensory, emotional, relational and symbolic meaning, all of which may influence acceptance and wellbeing (Block et al., 2011; To, 2024).

Food preferences are strongly shaped by learned cultural practices and social context. Foods associated with home, family events or collective rituals may acquire symbolic and nostalgic meaning (Block et al., 2011; Ares et al., 2016; Cantarero et al., 2013; Mela, 1999; Reid et al., 2023; Morley et al., 1988).

On the one hand, people are more likely to reach for these typical meals to affirm their socio-cultural identity promoting food enjoyment (Reid et al., 2023). Preparing and consuming meals is a way of expressing cultural identity, often involving rituals passed on from generation to generation (Block et al., 2011). On the other hand, individuals prefer cultural meals to address stress and social isolation (loneliness), often because they are related to feelings of belonging (Troisi et al., 2015; Spence, 2017; Reid et al., 2023).

Personal food desires change depending on different environmental factors shaping our food enjoyment (Loke et al., 2024a). In extreme environments, food experience is related to changes in food intake amounts, energy needs and appetite (Westerterp-Plantenga, 1999).

One study shows that staying at high altitudes (2500–5000 m) reduces appetite and alters food choices. This is due to hormonal changes caused by energy deprivation at high altitudes. At the start of the expedition, participants prefer sweet and low-protein foods. Once they have adapted and lost weight, they prefer high-fat foods (Karl et al., 2018). A study about people in socially harsh environments came to a similar conclusion. The subjects preferred calorie-dense foods (e.g., meat and sweets) due to stress, whilst in general their desire to eat fruit and vegetables did not change (Swaffield and Roberts, 2015).

Specific to space travel, astronauts have confirmed that food in space is less tasty or palatable. They often develop an aversion to certain ingredients such as coffee. Frequently food tastes bland, so tabasco is regularly used to make the food better (Kerwin and Seddon, 2002). Condiments partially compensate for tastelessness (Severson, 2006). Ultimately, the difference in taste can cause lower food intake, lack of nutrients and weight loss (Kerwin and Seddon, 2002). This shift in taste would be temporary as one adjusts to extreme conditions (e.g., microgravity), but the sustained disrupted sense of smell remains hindering it (Bychkov et al., 2021; Loke et al., 2024a).

Isolated and confined environments may alter odour perception and emotional responses to food. Such findings suggest that stress and context can modify sensory experience, but causal translation to spaceflight requires direct testing (Loke et al., 2024a; Loke et al., 2024b).

In extreme circumstances, it is crucial to ensure adequate intake of specific nutrients. However, as appetite diminishes, it is important to encourage it. In addition to taste and smell, visual appeal plays a significant role as well.

It turns out that people eat more when food looks appetizing. Since appetite is related to the palatability of food, it is important to focus on that too (Westerterp-Plantenga, 1999). Otherwise, not enough will be eaten to boost morale, health and performance (Douglas et al., 2020). Moreover, tasty, enjoyable meals help astronauts better cope with the harsh conditions such as isolation, weightlessness and dangers of space flight (Kerwin and Seddon, 2002). Palatability is a key part of the space food system ensuring astronauts are willing and able to cook and consume enjoyable meals every day (Douglas et al., 2020).

Furthermore, food preferences and appetite depend on variety. There should be sufficient alternation between ingredients of different types, flavors and textures. Even a favorite dish cannot be consumed too frequently. ‘Menu fatigue’ should be avoided, which may cause astronauts to turn away from available food, eat too little, lose weight and develop health problems (Douglas et al., 2020; Cranford and Turner, 2021; Tang et al., 2021).

In extreme environments, nutritional requirements, altered appetite and sensory changes may conflict with established preferences. The operational objective is therefore not to privilege cultural meaning over nutritional adequacy, but to identify culturally acceptable options that remain safe, stable, resource-efficient and nutritionally appropriate.

The choice and appetite for certain foods depend not only on cultural factors, but also on various environmental factors. When one wants to satisfy the desire to eat traditional dishes in extreme environments such as space, the changed taste, smell and palatability of the dishes must be taken into account. If not, the meals might be disappointing and the benefits of eating cultural foods, namely, the positive impact on mental wellbeing, might lose their effect.

4 Food and mental resilience on long-duration space missions

4.1 Evolution of space food

Space food has evolved significantly since human space exploration began. Improvements are likely to continue as space travel evolves and missions get longer. Below is an overview of how space food has changed over the years.

4.1.1 Early space food (1960s)

With the first human in space, the first space meal was also consumed. On 12 April 1961, during the Vostok one mission, Yuri Gagarin ate beef and liver paste as a main course and chocolate sauce for dessert, both packed in a toothpaste-like tube which he had to squeeze into his mouth (Uri, 2020a).

The first American in space, John Glenn, could similarly enjoy applesauce during the Mercury Program in 1961. Later participants (1961–1963) in the same program had to deal with small dehydrated cubes and semi-liquid meals, all packaged in aluminum tubes (Uri, 2020a). These meals were not tasty, not appetizing and not varied (Lyndon, 2002).

With the 1965 Gemini mission, there was a slight improvement, as freeze-dried food was introduced. Before the astronauts could eat it, they had to use a water gun to rehydrate it (Watson, 2024). Packaging also improved and bite-sized cubes were given a layer of gelatine to limit crumbling (Lyndon, 2002). The astronauts were already able to choose from a wider range of meals here, such as shrimp cocktails, juices, chicken soup and butterscotch pudding (Watson, 2024).

4.1.2 Apollo era (1960s–1970s)

The Apollo Program provided a lot of innovations. First, those astronauts were the first to have hot water in space. This made rehydration of food easier and improved taste. Second, wetpacks were provided, namely, thermostabilized pouches to keep food moist enough to eliminate the need for rehydration. Third, the Apollo astronauts were the first to have kitchen tools and thus no longer had to use tubes to squeeze food directly into their mouths. More specifically, a ‘spoon bowl’ was used which was a plastic bag with dehydrated food in it. Water was added to this, after which the food was sticky enough to eat with a spoon without it flying away (Watson, 2024).

Astronauts could create their menu from about seventy items ranging from appetizers to main dishes, snacks, spices and drinks (Uri, 2020a). They could eat tuna salad, fruit cake, bacon cubes, sandwiches and cereal (Watson, 2024).

4.1.3 Skylab (1970s)

With Skylab, little changed about the food itself, but the way it was stored and consumed improved. A fridge, a freezer, warming trays and storage containers were provided. There also was a dining area with a table (Pandith et al., 2023). All this made it possible to eat ice cream, lobster and other frozen delicacies (Bourland, 2006). However, that equipment was omitted from later missions (Smith et al., 2021).

4.1.4 Space Shuttle era (1980s–2000s)

From the 1980s, space food was starting to look more like the food on Earth. Kitchen equipment was installed on the Space Shuttle (Raleng et al., 2024). This allowed pre-cooked meals to be prepared (reheating and rehydrating) which made them much tastier and more diverse (Uri, 2020a). Furthermore, astronauts could create their own menu based on 74 ingredients and 20 beverages (Watson, 2024).

4.1.5 International Space Station (2000s-present)

With international cooperation for the ISS, meals in space also became more diverse (Raleng et al., 2024). Astronauts can choose from around 200 options for their standard menu and complete it with personal preferences (Uri, 2020a). The proportion in the menu is an 80%–20% ratio (Pandith et al., 2023).

ISS menus include foods from multiple culinary traditions, including tortillas, curries, kimchi, teriyaki dishes, pasta, borscht and noodles. Availability nevertheless depends on qualification, packaging, storage and resupply constraints (Uri, 2020a; Crespo, 2023; Pandith et al., 2023; Italian Embassy of Washington, 2023).

Still, most meals remain freeze-dried and thermostabilized to ensure shelf life. Fresh fruit and vegetables are still a thorny issue given their short shelf life. At the ISS, regular resupply of fresh ingredients occurs. Shuttles are now also provided with a fresh food locker to store bread, fruit and vegetables (Lyndon, 2002; Butler, 2018; Pandith et al., 2023).

Future: Mars missions? The evolutions mentioned above are mainly related to short space missions. As the space sector now focuses more on long-duration missions to other planets (e.g., a 30-month mission to Mars) and building permanent bases, new food challenges arise (Douglas et al., 2020; Levine, 2024). Consequently, the astronauts’ food will have to have a much longer shelf life. No fresh food resupply will be possible, as is the case with the ISS. Packaging will also have to change to create as little weight and waste as possible (Pandith et al., 2023). Planned human Mars missions also motivate attention to autonomous food systems, although a discussion of Mars geology does not itself establish dietary requirements (Levine, 2024).

Two types of “space food systems” are likely to be used during long-term expeditions. One for travelling to and from Mars (or other planets) that will be similar to the system for the ISS, but without fresh food. And another system for the time spent on Mars itself, which will presumably involve a vegetarian diet without dairy products (Lyndon, 2002).

This seamlessly leads us to the next section regarding the challenges of space food related to nutritional requirements and preferences during long missions, the already undertaken steps, and the constraints we face.

4.2 Nutritional requirements in space

Food provision becomes more difficult as mission duration, distance and autonomy increase. Microgravity, radiation, isolation, confinement, communication delay and the absence of regular resupply jointly affect physiological requirements, food quality, preparation options and psychological experience (Douglas et al., 2020).

Food is one of the few material resources encountered repeatedly throughout a mission and can influence nutritional status, morale and social interaction. Its contribution should nevertheless be understood as one component of an integrated health and performance system (Douglas et al., 2020).

A specific space food system must be formed. This is a system created to provide all nutritional requirements and should be available during any human space mission to ensure health and performance (Smith et al., 2021).

Douglas et al. (2020) and Pandith et al. (2023) list similar criteria that any space food system must meet for a successful mission (Douglas et al., 2020; Pandith et al., 2023). According to Pandith et al. (2023), these criteria can be divided into three categories: biological, engineering and operational (Pandith et al., 2023).

It involves the following eight criteria: safety, stability, usability, resource minimization, reliability, nutrition, variety and palatability (Douglas et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2021; Pandith et al., 2023). For the purpose of this paper, only the last three criteria are relevant. We leave aside the more technical criteria and focus on the nutritional and preference-related criteria.

• - Nutrition. It is extremely important for astronauts that sufficient nutrients and calories are provided, that nutrition is adequately preserved, and that nutrient toxicities are absent. The lack of these elements has led to failed missions in the past. To this end, real foods must be made available, not merely supplements.
• - Variety. The overall food system must include enough variety. The taste, ingredients, texture and type must change regularly to avoid boredom and ‘menu fatigue’.
• - Palatability. Since it is important for astronauts to ingest enough food, the food must also look appetizing. This is necessary to promote morale, health and performance. Moreover, the longer, further and more isolated the mission, the higher the need for traditional and acceptable food.

All these criteria are important, but represent space food challenges for long-duration missions both by themselves and in combination with each other. Whereas today most requirements for shorter space flights are met, long-term expeditions bring new unknowns and hurdles. Currently, there is no developed, tested and proven food system that meets all the requirements for a life of 5 years or more in space (Douglas et al., 2020). A re-designed food system will have to be created that balances all criteria and fits within the constraints of future missions. NASA food-technology programme identified a five-year shelf-life target for foods intended for planetary outposts (Pometto and Bourland, 2003).

4.3 Challenges and limitations

The nutritional and preference-related criteria (palatability and variety) must be balanced. Both elements contribute to astronauts’ mental wellbeing, which brings us back to the gut-brain axis, since mental resilience is put to an extra test on prolonged missions.

Spaceflight-related physiological risks arise from microgravity, radiation, altered environments and mission duration and include bone and muscle loss, renal and metabolic changes, immune dysregulation and other health effects. Gastrointestinal symptoms, motion sickness, altered appetite and weight loss may further compromise intake (Bychkov et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2021; Pandith et al., 2023; Pometto and Bourland, 2003).

Therefore, during space missions, nutrition needs to prevent nutrition deficiency and to serve as a countermeasure against the negative impact of space on the human body (Smith et al., 2021). A balanced diet is extremely important to ensure the immune system can fight infections and diseases (Raleng et al., 2024).

To address these problems, space food must be carefully composed to provide certain nutrients such as essential minerals, calories and vitamins (Raleng et al., 2024). For long-duration space missions, one starts from the terrestrial nutritional requirements, but with some peculiarities (Smith et al., 2021), such as higher iron and calcium intake, less fat and fiber, and more carbohydrates (Pandith et al., 2023).

Today, it is still difficult to find a good balance from a nutritional perspective. Scientists want to ensure that astronauts get enough nutrients and energy during long-duration missions, but issues such as insufficient calories and nutrient deficiencies and toxicities remain (Ruge, 2004). For example, it is currently impossible to avoid physical changes associated with bone loss and muscle changes (Pandith et al., 2023).

While it is already hard to provide the right nutrients, it is additionally challenging to ensure that the food is palatable, varied and tasty. This means considering personal preferences, culturally traditional meals, and taste and smell changes during space flight. Palatable food also ensures that astronauts (want to) eat enough and thus obtain the necessary nutrients and avoid weight loss to prevent physical issues (Douglas et al., 2020; Pandith et al., 2023). This partially explains why the required nutrients are not given as supplements in pills. This is not as appealing, although it would be easier (Song et al., 2009).

Cultural familiarity and personal preference may become increasingly important as mission duration increases, yet exploration missions sharply constrain individualised menus. Food may be produced or packaged before final crew selection, limiting accommodation of preferences, allergies and intolerances unless modularity is incorporated at an early design stage (Bychkov et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2021).

5 Discussion

5.1 Balancing nutrition and culture

The evidence supports a complementary rather than oppositional relationship between nutritional adequacy and cultural acceptability. Nutritional composition may affect mental health through biological pathways, while familiarity, palatability and shared meal practices may influence intake and wellbeing through psychosocial and behavioural pathways.

On the one hand, nutrients and metabolites created during digestion benefit physical and mental health. An appropriate diet promotes performance, sleep, immunity, state of mind and thinking capacity, all of which are psychological factors that may cause issues during long-duration space missions (see Section 1) (Smith et al., 2021). On the other hand, tasty, appetizing, and preferred food boosts morale, which in turn makes astronauts want to eat more and thus obtain the nutrients necessary for physical wellbeing.

These pathways may interact: culturally acceptable food may improve intake and adherence, thereby supporting nutritional status, while adequate nutrition may protect physiological functions relevant to cognition and mood. This interaction is plausible but has not been demonstrated specifically for culturally familiar foods during spaceflight.

The central theoretical contribution of this review is a dual-pathway framework. In the biological pathway, dietary composition influences metabolic, immune, endocrine, neural and microbial signalling. In the psychosocial pathway, cultural familiarity influences autobiographical memory, identity, belonging, perceived control, sensory expectation and social connection. Mission characteristics and food-system constraints moderate both pathways, which may converge on intake, mood, team cohesion and performance. The framework distinguishes evidence-supported mechanisms from the untested proposition that cultural familiarity improves astronaut resilience.

Testing this framework requires collaboration among space psychology, nutrition, microbiology, food science, human factors and systems engineering. Cultural familiarity should be evaluated as a measurable food-system attribute rather than assumed to be universally beneficial (Pandith et al., 2023).

5.2 Multicultural crews and shared meals

Multicultural crews create both opportunities and constraints. Shared meals can encourage cultural exchange, storytelling and group cohesion, but a food strongly associated with one crew member’s identity may be unfamiliar, unacceptable or restricted for another because of religion, ethics, allergy, intolerance or sensory preference. Equitable provision therefore requires pre-flight co-design with the full crew, transparent prioritisation criteria and modular components that allow individual adaptation without fragmenting communal mealtimes. Rotating culturally representative meals, shared base ingredients with optional flavour modules, and periodic crew-selected menus are testable approaches. Compromise should not be framed as convergence on a single dominant cuisine; the objective is a nutritionally adequate repertoire in which all crew members experience recognition, choice and opportunities for shared discovery.

5.3 Recent developments

Planned missions beyond low-Earth orbit justify early investigation of food systems that integrate nutritional, technical, sensory and cultural requirements (Douglas et al., 2020).

Studies have been set in motion to devise a food system that meets all eight criteria, as set out above. We elaborate on two developments and their challenges regarding the nutritional and preference-related criteria contributing to the mental wellbeing of astronauts. Of course, the other more technical criteria, such as packaging and safety, should always be kept in mind.

Since fresh fruits and vegetables are unavailable during long-duration space missions, researchers are paying attention to space farming. Astronauts should try to grow food in space, and this has proven to be successful.

In 2014, the first space-grown crop of lettuce was produced by astronauts thanks to NASA’s Vegetable Production System (VEGGIE). The lettuce was of good quality, as on Earth.

Meanwhile, other crops were also grown successfully, such as lentils, radishes and mustard plants (NASA, 2020; Bychkov et al., 2021). Research into producing peppers, tomatoes, plums and staple foods such as wheat continues (Pandith et al., 2023).

The advantage of space farming is that astronauts can be self-sufficient while having essential nutrients and varied, traditional flavors. To enable this, some key elements are crucial, such as automation, optimal cultivation conditions and advanced plant varieties (Raleng et al., 2024). Further, space farming entails additional equipment costs and requires space on the spacecraft. All this with the possibility of crop failure (Pandith et al., 2023).

Another interesting research topic is 3D food printing. With this technology, researchers hope to easily prepare specific meals on demand, whilst meeting nutritional and taste requirements (Raleng et al., 2024). High-tech printers that produce appetizing meals based on edible powders, pastes and nutrients are under development (Pandith et al., 2023).

3D-printed food can have a lot of benefits. It enables preparing varied meals that meet personal preferences, whilst creating less waste than pre-packaged meals. Above all, it could improve the eating experience of astronauts as printers could potentially create better taste, texture and visualization (Raleng et al., 2024).

There are drawbacks too. Further research is needed on food safety and reliability. 3D printing is time-consuming and not always successful or accurate. It involves a lot of equipment costs (Bychkov et al., 2021; Pandith et al., 2023; Santhoshkumar et al., 2024).

Space farming and three-dimensional food printing may increase freshness, sensory variety and personalisation, but their psychological value, reliability, resource requirements and scalability must be evaluated under mission-relevant conditions.

5.4 Future research and recommendations

Research should progress from controlled terrestrial studies to high-fidelity analogues and, where feasible, in-flight validation. Protocols should distinguish cultural familiarity from nutrient composition, palatability, novelty and personal preference.

A first priority is a randomised crossover study in which participants receive nutritionally matched meals differing in cultural familiarity. Outcomes should include consumption, appetite, mood, perceived stress, homesickness, sleep, cognitive performance and acceptability. High-fidelity isolated and confined analogues could then assess persistence of effects across mission phases.

A second priority is to test crew-level effects. Multicultural teams could compare standard menus with co-designed, rotating culturally representative menus while measuring cohesion, conflict, meal participation, perceived inclusion and individual dietary adequacy.

A third priority is mechanistic separation. Studies should combine psychosocial measures with dietary intake, metabolomic, inflammatory and microbiome outcomes to determine whether observed effects arise from cultural meaning, nutrient composition, altered consumption or interactions among these factors. Technology-enabled personalisation should be evaluated for feasibility, reliability, preparatiin time, mass, energy, waste and cost (Douglas et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2021).

International coordination among space agencies, researchers and commercial partners would support harmonised outcomes, shared analogue protocols and cumulative evidence. Research should also examine equity: whose foods are represented, how dietary restrictions are accommodated and whether personalisation benefits all crew members.

6 Conclusion

Culturally familiar foods are a plausible, but currently unproven, contributor to mental resilience during long-duration space missions.

The review identifies two complementary pathways. Dietary composition may influence mood and cognition through metabolic, immune, endocrine, neural and microbiota-related mechanisms; cultural familiarity may influence wellbeing through identity, nostalgia, belonging, perceived control, sensory expectation and social connection.

The available literature supports the components of this framework, but not the causal conclusion that culturally familiar foods improve astronaut mental health. Evidence from students, migrants and terrestrial extreme environments is hypothesis-generating and must be validated in highly selected astronaut populations under mission-relevant constraints.

Three testable hypotheses follow: nutritionally matched culturally familiar meals will improve intake and short-term affect relative to unfamiliar meals; co-designed multicultural menus will increase perceived inclusion and shared-meal participation; and psychosocial effects of familiarity will be partly independent of microbiome and nutrient-mediated effects.

Future food systems should therefore treat cultural familiarity as one design attribute alongside safety, stability, usability, resource efficiency, reliability, nutritional adequacy, variety and palatability. Modularity, crew co-design, crop production and food-printing technologies may help reconcile these requirements, but each approach requires behavioural, biomedical and engineering validation.

The immediate research priority is a staged programme combining controlled feeding studies, isolated and confined analogues and in-flight validation with standardised psychological, dietary, microbiome and team-level outcomes.

Such evidence would determine whether culturally familiar foods can move from an intuitively appealing concept to a safe, equitable and operationally credible component of exploration-class food systems.

The objective is not to reproduce an idealised meal from Earth, but to design food systems that sustain the body while preserving meaningful elements of identity, choice and human connection.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used to support aspects of the manuscript’s linguistic and editorial refinement. All content was critically reviewed and verified by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Irene Di Giulio, King’s College London, United Kingdom

Reviewed by: Carole Tafforin, Independent Researcher, Ethospace, France

Erkai Zhou, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China