AbstractThe City of Baltimore has made great progress in developing its urban agriculture policies over the last decade, as part of an overall food systems approach to sustainability. This work has been the result of intensive investment in planning efforts, mapping, inter-agency partnerships, and community engagement. Specific areas of policy development include zoning and permitting, land leasing, healthy soil regulations, and incentives for growers. There have been challenges along the way, specifically around staffing and funding, appropriately including resident voices, and differing city agency priorities, particularly on the issue of land access.Examining Baltimore’s trajectory yields insights and lessons for other cities seeking to develop their own policies around urban agriculture, particularly in regards to establishing food and farming as city priorities, using food environment mapping as a powerful tool to show areas of need and opportunity, and properly framing the issues at play for decision-makers and community members. The greatest takeaway from Baltimore’s experience is the importance of mainstreaming food policy into urban planning, not as a sidebar but as a consistent bedrock priority. A key community partner, the Farm Alliance of Baltimore, is highlighted at the end of the chapter.

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

Paralleling growing international interest in the cultivation of crops and livestock in cities-hereafter urban agriculture (UA)-Baltimore City has developed a robust network of urban farms and gardens and UA practitioners, particularly over the past decade. Despite the city's prominent UA scene, the nature of UA in Baltimore has not been thoroughly characterized in existing literature to date. We used a survey and on-site observations of 104 urban farms and gardens participating in the Safe Urban Harvests Study to explore site characteristics; growing practices; produce production, harvest, and distribution; and contaminant history and testing. Our results demonstrate a diversity of characteristics and growing practices across the UA operations in the city, especially when comparing among community gardens, urban farms, educational gardens, donation gardens, and therapy gardens. This study illuminates the size and scope of UA operations in Baltimore, with 104 participating sites occupying nearly 10 ha of land, producing an estimated 43,000 kg of produce per growing season, and engaging approximately two percent of city residents. Most sites engaged in best practices for reducing risks from potential soil contamination, including having tested soils for contaminants, growing in raised beds, and importing growing media. The use of renewable inputs varied; most sites did not use chemical pesticides or fertilizers (non-renewable inputs), however most sites did not use rain barrels or on-site composting (practices that renew inputs) either. Our findings also suggest that residents living within neighborhoods that have limited access to grocery stores with healthy foods do not necessarily have limited access to urban farms and gardens relative to other city residents. These data will enable UA practitioners, educators, and policymakers in Baltimore to tailor their programs and policies to address the needs of local growers. Lessons learned from the survey instrument could inform research exploring UA operations in other cities.