1. I have changed the neighborhood’s name, along with the names of its residents
and other persons and institutions involved in this book. The distinction be-
tween “Mumbai” and “Bombay” is a complex one, with po litical and historical
entailments that stretch back even before the oﬃcial name change in 1995;
see Hansen 2002. Many of the residents in the neighborhood use “Bombay”
and “Mumbai” interchangeably, sometimes as a function of the language being
spoken. I attempt to reflect these patterns wherever pos si ble. The work of Kal-
pish Ratna (Kalpana Swaminathan and Ishrat Syed) first brought the Bombay
plague’s manifestation in Bandra to my attention; see Ratna 2008, 2010, 2015.
For additional engagements with the plague in India, see Arnold 1987, 1993;
Klein 1988; and Kidambi 2004.
2. Philosopher Catherine Malabou calls transitions “theoretical fissures.” “Prob-
lematically, they are not recognized as such and thus “run the risk of being
overwhelmed by brute, naïve ideology,” she writes (2008: 63).
3. This model, presented as somewhat infallible during my own gradu ate public
health education, explains dietary trends in human history as a five- pattern
pro cess that moves through regimes of plant- based foraging, famine, famine’s
reduction and the rise of pro cessed food intake, and the eventual final, ideal
pattern of “healthy” food intake and subsequent reduction in chronic diseases.
The nutrition transition model nests within ideas about “the epidemiological
transition,” a shift from predominant burdens of infectious disease to those
of chronic disease. See Popkin 2001; Popkin et al. 2001; Popkin and Gordon-
Larsen 2004. For critiques of these models, see Nichter and Van Sickle 2002;