Search

Background: Emerging evidence suggests social, health, environmental, and economic benefits of urban agriculture (UA). However, limited work has characterized the risks from metal contaminant exposures faced by urban growers and consumers of urban-grown produce. Objectives: We aimed to answer community-driven questions about the safety of UA and the consumption of urban-grown produce by measuring concentrations of nine metals in the soil, irrigation water, and urban-grown produce across urban farms and gardens in Baltimore, Maryland. Methods: We measured concentrations of 6 nonessential [arsenic (As), barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni)] and three essential [copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn)] metals in soil, irrigation water, and 13 types of urban-grown produce collected from 104 UA sites. We compared measured concentrations to existing public health guidelines and analyzed relationships between urban soil and produce concentrations. In the absence of guidelines for metals in produce, we compared metals concentrations in urban-grown produce with those in produce purchased from farmers markets and grocery stores (both conventionally grown and U.S. Department of Agriculture–certified organic). Results: Mean concentrations of all measured metals in irrigation water were below public health guidelines. Mean concentrations of nonessential metals in growing area soils were below public health guidelines for Ba, Cd, Pb, and Ni and at or below background for As and Cr. Though we observed a few statistically significant differences in concentrations between urban and nonurban produce items for some combinations, no consistent or discernable patterns emerged. Discussion: Screening soils for heavy metals is a critical best practice for urban growers. Given limitations in existing public health guidelines for metals in soil, irrigation water, and produce, additional exposure assessment is necessary to quantify potential human health risks associated with exposure to nonessential metals when engaging in UA and consuming urban-grown produce. Conversely, the potential health benefits of consuming essential metals in urban-grown produce also merit further research. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9431

Undernutrition, obesity, climate change, and freshwater depletion share food and agricultural systems as an underlying driver. Efforts to more closely align dietary patterns with sustainability and health goals could be better informed with data covering the spectrum of countries characterized by over- and undernutrition. Here, we model the greenhouse gas (GHG) and water footprints of nine increasingly plant-forward diets, aligned with criteria for a healthy diet, specific to 140 countries. Results varied widely by country due to differences in: nutritional adjustments, baseline consumption patterns from which modeled diets were derived, import patterns, and the GHG- and water-intensities of foods by country of origin. Relative to exclusively plant-based (vegan) diets, diets comprised of plant foods with modest amounts of low-food chain animals (i.e., forage fish, bivalve mollusks, insects) had comparably small GHG and water footprints. In 95 percent of countries, diets that only included animal products for one meal per day were less GHG-intensive than lacto-ovo vegetarian diets (in which terrestrial and aquatic meats were eliminated entirely) in part due to the GHG-intensity of dairy foods. The relatively optimal choices among modeled diets otherwise varied across countries, in part due to contributions from deforestation (e.g., for feed production and grazing lands) and highly freshwater-intensive forms of aquaculture. Globally, modest plant-forward shifts (e.g., to low red meat diets) were offset by modeled increases in protein and caloric intake among undernourished populations, resulting in net increases in GHG and water footprints. These and other findings highlight the importance of trade, culture, and nutrition in diet footprint analyses. The country-specific results presented here could provide nutritionally-viable pathways for high-meat consuming countries as well as transitioning countries that might otherwise adopt the Western dietary pattern.

The growth of interest in urban agriculture (UA) has paralleled an increase in municipal policy to enable, regulate, or otherwise support UA, particularly over the past decade. Yet, there has been no systematic documentation and characterization of the myriad UA public policies emerging across different cities within the United States (US). To address this gap, we developed a framework to understand the landscape of municipal UA policy, focusing on authority, policy instruments, and topic areas. We systematically compiled and catalogued policy recommendations, city plans and priorities, regulations, guidance, and city-operated programs from the 40 most populous US cities. The results demonstrate the wide variety of ways in which cities address UA through public policy, employing an array of policy instruments with different levels of authority and topics addressed, ranging from accessory structures and compost to public land access and soil safety. The growing frequency in which governments are engaging in public-private partnerships illustrates the increasing role of civil society groups as collaborators instead of stakeholders in municipal government processes. This shift towards a shared governance approach raises questions around who is leading the advocacy, creation, and enforcement of UA policies, and how that may affect concerns around equity and food justice. Furthermore, our results highlight the need for cities to more clearly synthesize their UA policies to assist practitioners in navigating a landscape of numerous policies stemming from different government departments and partnerships. Our findings lay the groundwork for expanding, refining, and adapting UA policymaking in varying governance contexts.

A diversity of cross-sectoral, multi-scalar networks are emerging to connect place-based food governance initiatives, such as food policy councils and partnerships, aimed to foster sustainable food security. Yet little research has explored how local food policy groups (LFPGs) are (horizontally) connecting to share knowledge and resources, or interacting (vertically) with other scales of food governance. To address this gap, we examine the trans-local dimension of food policy networks—and its potential to facilitate transformative food system reform. We build on alternative food network, social network, and assemblage thinking to develop an analytical framework that unveils the mobile, unstable, and relational processes and spatialities of LFPGs and the networks which connect them. Through an action-research project comprising a comparative analysis of the Food Policy Networks project in the US and Sustainable Food Cities Network in the UK, we explore how LFPGs connect across different scales and emerge as social-spatial assemblages of food system knowledge, practices, and infrastructure. The findings suggest that conceptualizing these entities as dynamic and place-contingent enables evaluations of their relations and effects to account for features that (could) make them more interconnected, resilient, and transformative, but may also limit their ability to address structurally entrenched food system challenges.

The article “Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment,” Water 2019 11: 728 by Fresán et al. analyzes the water footprints (WFs) of 39 meat analogs and their associated eutrophication and ecotoxicity potential. We have several questions and concerns about the WFs presented in this study, which in some cases are an order of magnitude larger than those reported for similar products in other published works. Additionally, at least some of the WFs of other meat analogs and conventional meats—to which the authors compare their results—appear to misrepresent the cited literature. We encourage the authors to provide clarification on how the WF values for meat analogs are so much higher than those reported in other studies and to verify the comparison values reported from other sources.

ObjectiveTo describe the methods, strengths and limitations of available data sources for estimating US meat and protein consumption in order to facilitate accurate interpretations and applications.DesignWe examined agricultural supply and dietary intake databases from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services and the FAO to describe their methodology and to report the most recent estimates for meat and protein consumption.ResultsTogether, loss-adjusted agricultural supply data and dietary recall data provide the best available estimates of US consumption; the most recent sources indicated that US citizens (ages 2 years and over) consume 4·4–5·9 oz (125·9–166·5 g) of total meat and 6·2–7·4 oz-eq (175·2–209·4 g-eq) from the USDA Protein Foods Group per day. Meat constitutes the majority of intake within the Protein Foods Group, and red meat and processed meat constitute the majority of total meat intake. Nutrient supply data indicate that total meat represents an estimated 43·1 % of the total protein available in the US food supply, but without any loss-adjusted nutrient data, per capita protein intake is best estimated by dietary recall data to be 79·9 g/d.ConclusionsIn order to address public health concerns related to excess meat and/or protein consumption, practitioners, educators and researchers must appropriately use available data sources in order to accurately report consumption at the population level. Implications for comparing these estimates with various recommended intakes are discussed.

As cities across the nation seek to improve healthy food access, this participant observer case study highlights how one midsized city successfully developed a collaborative infrastructure to understand and address inequity in healthy food access. We trace the genesis and evolution of Baltimore's Food Policy Task Force, the hiring of a food policy director, and the establishment of the Baltimore Food Policy Initiative, which is an intergovernmental partnership to increase access to healthy, affordable foods in urban food deserts. While some cities have approached food access issues through community coalitions pressuring city government or government edicts, Baltimore successfully identified its need, used available research to drive and inform action, established priorities, and acted expeditiously with a focus on sustainability. This case study is relevant and applicable for those seeking to influence change in local food policy in midsized urban settings.