ecospeakdotnet.files.wordpress.com · web viewin order to affect policy change urban agriculture...

Urban Agriculture in Public Health 1

Identifying Urban Agriculture as a Public

Health Tool-A Policy Analysis and Brief-

Carlos Minaya

Loyola University Chicago

School of Public Health

May 2nd, 2015


Abstract

Current industrial agriculture practices, and the policies that govern them, have been responsible in some way for vast environmental degradation, food insecurity, and the socioeconomic and health problems that arise in communities because of them.

The policy brief outlined here will identify the role Industrial Agriculture has played in the above mentioned problems. It will then propose a new strategy to mitigate these harms by describing its benefits. Then briefly discuss the historical policies that currently shape the way farming is practiced. This brief will also serve to identify approaches to changing policy necessary to promoting this alternative system. Please note that all figures are included in the appendix at the end of this brief.

The built and natural environments are increasingly united, but the human perspective is that they are distinct. It is the hope of this policy brief to promote radical thinking with regards to food production that can benefit a myriad group of stakeholders, as well as secure positive environmental stewardship. If an approach can be advocated for that that incorporates urban agriculture programs and environmentally sustainable practices at the industrial level, then this brief will have succeeded.

Understanding the process that goes into policy drafting and research with regards to environmental and community issues is the personal outcome behind this. Professionally, I hope to use this policy brief as a stepping stone for a more professional piece that may have some real world impact or application.


Food insecurity in urban and rural populations and certain levels of

environmental degradation are the combined result of a myriad of problems

associated with industrialized agriculture. The resulting health effects are

widespread and have typically been felt by those living in poverty; as food

insecurity, poverty and a number of other socio-economic factors are

interconnected. The environmental harms have been equally documented,

but occur gradually and so do not garner the same attention until they have

reached their peak; as in the case of California’s drought. Linking both ills

in this policy brief allows for a holistic approach to promoting programs that

advocate for Agro-Ecology, a concept that will become more prominent in

the coming years.

Understanding the Problem at the Community Level

The lengthy course of history that has shaped agriculture in the US,

leading to what can only be described as Industrialized Agriculture, is

deeply entwined with domestic policy and so, much of this history can be

discussed alongside that of the Federal Farm Bill. Industrialized Agriculture

(IA from now on) is a moniker referring to the capital intensive mass

production of produce through the use of advanced technological, political,

genetic and economic methods (Economy Watch). This business based

definition is important to understanding where some of the negative health

(community and environmental) effects originate from and why.

Our discussion of the community health effects begins on the farm.

The farming community and people living in the vicinity of farms are subject


to manure and pesticide contaminants through the air and water. A review

of the negative impacts of IA by Horrigan (2002) mentions pesticides and

their links to cancer risk, immune system suppression, reproductive

disorders and endocrine disruption. More recent studies done by Cockburn

(2011) and Goldner (2010) show that health effects continue to be a topic of

concern with pesticides because of the lasting presence they have in the

soil, in fat tissue that bio-accumulates due to work exposure, in community

exposure via air contaminants and in some of the food we consume.

In addition to grain farms, livestock farms are also part of the IA

system and affect community health. A common practice with livestock

farms is to manage manure by funneling it into containers and ditches

where it can be disposed of later. These containers end up serving as an

incubator for harmful bacteria and often times this same manure is used as

a fertilizer by feed farms; introducing bacteria into crops already laden with

pesticides. In cases where the containers leak we have seen subsequent

contamination of the water table; affecting the potable water from

neighboring communities (Bohlke, 2002). These cesspools also release toxic

gases into the air that have negative health effects on the field laborers and

those living in vicinity of the farm. A study by Thu (1997) found that some of

the negative health conditions reported by neighboring communities

included headaches, respiratory problems, skin and mucous membrane

irritation, and nausea.


Industrialized Agriculture does not limit its reach to physical health

problems, but also affects nutrition and food security.

In a fifty year study conducted by Davis (2004), he was able to show a

steady decline in the nutritional values of forty three different vegetables

grown and consumed in the US. The study made strong associations

between IA and this outcome. As an example we review his findings for

corn. Between 1950 and 1999 the overall nutritional values declined as

follows: energy (kcal) had a negative 7% change, calcium (mg) a negative

78% change, phosphorous (mg) a negative 26% change, Vitamin A (IU) a

negative 28% change, Ascorbic Acid (mg) a negative 43% change. He

attributed these results to a number of factors. First, that the selection of

cultivars1 in use trade nutrient content for yield. Second, that fertilizer

overuse promotes a growth rate that is faster than nutrients can accumulate

in the plant. Finally, that food grown in the early 1900’s was grown locally

without the intention of mass production.

In fact the idea of producing food locally shifted with the advent of the

supermarket. Below is a short excerpt from Joel Salatin (2012), an inspiring

and passionate advocate for sustainable local agriculture, who gives a rough

estimate as to when the very first supermarket hit the US:

“The first supermarket supposedly appeared on the American landscape in 1946. That is not very long ago. Until then, where was all the food? Dear folks, the food was in homes, gardens, local fields,

and forests. It was near kitchens, near tables, near bedsides. It was in the pantry, the cellar, the backyard.”

1 Cultivars are a plant variety, typically of agricultural use, that has been produced in cultivation through selective breeding


I encourage everyone to read his work, but what is important to take from

this is the date he gives because it is roughly around the same time Davis

began studying the decline of nutritional values in consumed produce.

Understanding that there exists a nutritional devaluation in produced food

adds a layer of necessity and urgency to resolving the problem of food

insecurity.

Food insecurity is a large umbrella term that encompasses the ill

effects of not having access to or availability of good2 food as well as the

knowledge to utilize it and the personal stability to access it. Keeping that

in mind let us begin understanding the current food system. Our food

system requires heavy machinery, pesticides and fertilizers, waste removal,

storage facilities, processing of food, packaging of produce, and

transportation across the country and into the homes of the consumer. The

common factor among all of them is petroleum (Neff 2011). Since oil is a

finite resource it should come as no surprise that we will reach a moment

when it will peak and eventually bottom out. When it does, the decline will

leave the food system vulnerable, on myriad levels, to collapse under its

own weight unless it can adopt a different strategy. Farmers invest a lot of

money into food production, and as oil prices increase and production

expenses rise so too does the value of food in grocery stores. A study by the

World Bank (Baffes 2013) shows this food-energy price link; where

increased production costs on the farm, lead to higher costs at the

2 “Good” refers to food that is nutritional and affordable


supermarket. It is important to note that the reverse is also true; which

explains why during times of increased supply of petroleum organic labeled

produce, which limits the involvement of the oil industry in their production

system, costs more than generics.

Now we begin to see the development of food insecurity as a result of

modern IA. Rural towns and low income neighborhoods that cannot afford

the higher costs, for reasons outside of their food insecurity, are further

affected by a growing disparity as supermarkets, with larger variety of

nutritious food, do not establish a store due to cost-effectiveness. The term

“food desert” describes these types of areas. Lois Morton (2007) developed

a map (Fig. 1) using distance from a supermarket as a means of establishing

nationwide food deserts. These physical barriers exist at the city level too

and exist in conjunction with other socio-economic factors.

Mari Gallagher’s study on Chicago’s food deserts (Gallagher 2006) is

important to understanding the correlation between food security, physical

barriers and socio-economic factors. In it she notes how physical barriers to

food at the city level exist as a product of neighborhood demographics,

income, and crime rate. Factors which correlate with racial geography and

impact the presence or absence of a food desert. Figure 2 represents some

of her findings.

Food insecurity also plays a large role in education and school

performance. In recent weeks there have been many television and radio


advertisements by the Feeding America organization promoting different

avenues for providing food for children and families that fall into the

category of food insecure. The Children’s Health Watch group released a

study (Children’s, 2013) outlining how children are at risk for obesity,

developmental delays, decreased cognitive function, interrupted social

development and even lower economic status if they remain in this state. In

it they also state that as of 2011 about 20% of US households with children

experienced food insecurity.

In order to get a visual representation of the above analysis, this brief

directs you to figure 3 in the appendix.

The Environmental Perspective

As important as it is to understand the community health aspect

related to Industrialized Agriculture; it is equally important to understand

the environmental component because current Federal policy groups

agricultural funding with conservation and restoration efforts.

The ecological harm by IA is too extensive to describe and going into

detail on every aspect would be exhausting, and in some cases redundant.

The following lists a few of the effects: loss of biodiversity, degraded soil

quality, top-soil runoff, water pollution, global climate change and depletion

of non-renewable fuels.

Industrialized Agriculture, in order to remain profitable, has adopted

the practice of monoculture3. When a farmer is expected to produce one 3 Monoculture is the practice of producing one type of organism in a single area repeatedly; i.e. corn fields


crop repeatedly, the crop becomes susceptible to disease, weather,

droughts, insects and other harmful plants. In order to protect their crop a

farmer turns to genetic solutions. Normally, plants take time to develop a

tandem system of genes to ward off different problems. A farmer pushes his

crop variations quickly to develop the necessary genetic composition that he

needs for that immediate threat; be it a new insect, or an upcoming weather

pattern. Forcing cultivars to adapt for the benefit of the farmer and

consumer eventually makes those genes obsolete for the species as a whole.

Figure 4 depicts the scale at which agriculture exists in the US and

although the trend is moving towards a decline in the number of farms; this

does not take into account that the existing farms are getting larger and

thereby the land used for farming is becoming concentrated. This much

farm land requires heavy machinery to manage, leading to soil compaction.

This process destroys microorganisms in the soil that are necessary for the

absorption of chemicals, nutrients and toxicants. These microorganisms are

also useful for aerating and recharging the soil so it can be used by plants.

This degraded soil is unable to keep up with the demand of IA; which is why

fertilizer use, primarily nitrogen (N) based, has increased to an estimated

12.8 million tons as of 2011. (Fig.5)

Compacted farm soil also becomes less arable and cannot absorb

water, or nutrients. Chemical laden soil runoff seeps into the water table if

the soil is permeable enough or flows down to the nearest river and into the

ocean. When the runoff ends up in the nearest water way this leads to some


seemingly irreversible effects in places like the Gulf of Mexico and the

estuaries off the coast of New England. The term dead zone has been used

to describe these areas of water that are severely hypoxic4. The 2009 study

by NOAA (Dead Zone, 2009) states that 41% of the continental U.S. drains

into the Mississippi and that 70% of the nutrient load present in the Gulf is

attributed by and large to agricultural waste. Thankfully the connections

between IA waste and water pollution are not so subtle and have been a

point of attention in federal policy making (Cook, 1998).

Changing the System

Turning our attention towards mitigating some of the above

mentioned community and environmental harms, we come upon one

potential solution.

Urban Agriculture is more than the name implies. It is the act of

producing food locally, the desire to rebuild a community, the camaraderie

between individuals, the need to develop new ways of growing food in order

to limit harming nature, and more importantly it is a way living. Community

gardens, urban farms, hydroponic and aquaponic systems5, greenhouses

and vertical farms6 are all the different ways in which Urban Agriculture

works. As a system, these methods operate in conjunction with the

4 Hypoxia means that an area of water is devoid of sufficient oxygen to support any marine life. Usually an influx of nutrients in the water causes algal blooms, which drain the oxygen supply as they die off and decompose.5 Hydroponic systems incorporate a water recycling process among different soil-less planters all using the same reservoir. Aquaponic systems introduce fish in the reservoir and use the plant waste/nutrients as food for the fish and fish waste in the water is recycled as nutrients for the plants. 6 Any kind of growing that stacks planters or uses a wall instead of land is considered vertical, but if you want to get technical Vertical Farms are a futuristic merging of architecture, engineering and agriculture to produce a building whose sole purpose is to grow food. Dickson Despommier (2010, and 2013) writes on it.


communities and civic leaders that support them to further a positive food

movement for the benefit of everyone.

The best way to understand how Urban Agriculture can be used by

the Public Health profession and how it would be important in future policy

is by understanding the benefits associated with it.

In two studies (Hale, 2011 and Teig, 2009) based out of Denver, it was

documented through different interview strategies that community

gardening improved the level of mental well-being for most people. They

felt responsible for the farm where they had individual plots and also felt

connected to the other people working alongside them. People reported

how they had met neighbors they did not know they had and depicted

altruistic behaviors. The attitudes and concern they felt for each other and

the land, the satisfaction they felt when their crops were ready, and the

social bonds they strengthened all make up the social currency of a

community garden. The American Planning Association (2003) studied the

benefits of green spaces on neighborhoods and found that the reduced

aggression and increased social bonds these spaces provide encourage

safer communities and reduce crime rate.

Encouraging environmental stewardship is another aspect of Urban

Agriculture. Agro-ecology is the concept that incorporating the environment

as part of the agriculture system would mitigate the environmental toll, and

even aid in restoring the harm done. This is the driving principle behind


many organic farm systems and it has been shown that organic farms have

higher yields during times of biophysical stress, like droughts, and are able

to produce nutritionally better crops that have higher financial returns

(Pimentel, 2006). At the local level this concept can best be applied in rural

areas where the small farming communities are already under pressure

from large industrial farms and the price structure of the oil market. At the

city level the principle pf Agro-ecology already happens on farms and

gardens that grow crops alongside other plants for aesthetic and useful

purposes like pest control. Environmental stewardship does not end with

the functionality of Agro-ecology. It extends to the people that value the

gardens and farms where they grow their own food. The social currency

described in the preceding paragraph is a product of the community placing

an intangible value to the land in their neighborhood.

Measuring the economic impact of Urban Agriculture is a difficult

enterprise. The social and environmental benefits are best gauged through

speaking about them and witnessing them in action. The more quantifiable

data, dollar amounts and balance sheets, is limited due to the scope of

Urban Agriculture. Most organizations that employ some type of gardening

structure have limited records on revenues and if they do exist cannot be

applied across multiple Urban Agriculture programs. In general though, as

documented by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (2012 and 2013) and

Golden (2013), Urban Agriculture is associated with improved local


economies and long term increases in property values and employable

people..

As important as it is to understand the social, environmental and

economic factors it is necessary to describe the health impact. The use of

green spaces to promote safer areas (American Planning Association, 2003)

improves a person’s mental health status and encourages physical exercise

(National Gardening Association, 2009). Community gardens and farms

promote better nutrition in the immediate area and the seasonal opening of

farmer’s markets encourages healthier eating habits; all of which factor into

curbing obesity and prolonging life (Zick, 2013, Robinson, 2009,

McCormack, 2010). Although it is not explicitly stated that IA is directly

related to negative community health conditions (like it is with

environmental health conditions); the association exists if you look at the

subsequent links between the two. In this regard, Urban Agriculture is also

not explicitly stated as prolonging the quality of life of an individual or

community. Yet the association is there and the links are easier to see.

Federal Policy and Agriculture

Moving away from establishing the problem and identifying a viable

replacement we analyze the policies that promote the status quo.

Agriculture is governed by the Federal Farm Bill; a piece of legislation that

has existed since FDR and has changed over time. The initial 1993

Agricultural Adjustment Act was promoted by FDR to solve the problem of

hunger in the US (Johnson, 2014). He believed that the best strategy for


fighting hunger in the homes was by solving hunger on the farms. The

strategy of the AAA was to offer government subsidies to farmers, to limit

the amount of crops they planted and to protect the soil which was being

lost in the Dust Bowl. This policy would eventually become a standard piece

of legislation that incorporated nutrition benefits. Benefits that became

necessary during WWII as malnutrition was seen as a national security risk

(Johnson, 2014).

The strategy of the farm bill to balance agriculture and nutrition

issues would remain stable until the 70’s. Earl L. Butz became the secretary

of agriculture in 1971 and began overhauling the agriculture system in

favor of a free market strategy. He argued that allowing the world to

determine market prices would allow open trade and higher profits, but the

tradeoff was that the US would have to be the one with the surplus. He is

often quoted as encouraging farmers to plant “hedgerow to hedgerow”,

meaning that every inch of land should be pushed to produce as much of the

same crop as possible. A surplus by definition implies that a single item is

highly available. Around the time of this national grain surplus much of the

world succumbed to droughts; especially Russia. The Russian Wheat Deal of

’72 provided a market outlet that encouraged mass production of grain in

the US (National Family Farm Coalition).

As policy moved into the 80’s and then 90’s, industrial agriculture

became a large business and continued mass production of grain and corn.


This time the outlet was the commercial marketplace and promotion of corn

syrup (Mersol, 2014). Finally, in an attempt to reform industrial agriculture

price structures were changed with the result that farms started failing

rapidly. This led to the 2002 Farm Security Act and the permanent system

of government bailouts (Johnson, 2014). This brief timeline outlined above

shows the gradual shift from small farm to industrial business and the close

knit bond between federal policy and agriculture. It should also point out

that nutrition issues are not at the center of bailout or pricing reform

because the lobbyists for agriculture have spent a long time forming policy

to meet their needs.

The most recent draft of the Federal Farm Bill occurred in 2014 and

has expanded to include conservation issues, forestry, rural development

and technology research as well as nutrition and IA support. It should be

surprising to anyone that looks at the cost associated with it, as seen in Fig.

6 from the Washington Post (Plumer, 2014), that nutrition has grown in

scope to makes up 80% of spent funds. This type of spending is necessary

due to the amount of impoverished and food insecure people in the US. Yet,

because the nutrition lobby is almost non-existent all budget cuts come from

nutrition spending, which was estimated at $8 billion (Johnson, 2014).

Where does Urban Agriculture Fit In?

Urban Agriculture programs are primarily run through non-profits

and rely heavily on volunteers, charities, and grants. All federal funding that

can be used by Urban Agriculture programs is found in the Farm Bill.


Scattered throughout the twelve titles of the 2014 Farm Bill there are

potentially three avenues for funds (Mersol, 2014). Most funds though are

often misallocated to rural agriculture development because there is no

consistent definition for Urban Agriculture that offers enough distinction

between the two. Due to the wording in the legislation Urban Agriculture

programs very seldom qualify for federal support and if they do; there is

fierce competition among different organizations. The Farm Bill does not

explicitly exclude Urban Agriculture programs, but the confusion regarding

them limits how much federal support and attention is given. Regardless,

there are cases where Urban Agriculture programs have made strides

within the community, garner civic support and are a part of a growing

system that city policy advocates on their behalf.

New York City has a long history (Smith, 2003) of community garden

activism that has focused on promoting the rights of the people in using

public land to produce food and build a stronger community. Although there

is a lot of local support for community garden use; one of the biggest

struggles against comes from the city. Community gardens exist on public

property that is owned by the city and when developers insist on expanding

housing projects due to urban sprawl, the gardens are paved over and

destroyed. Land rights issues are the center stage of many Urban

Agriculture fights when the need for housing and development are up

against the need for green spaces and community health through

gardening. In this instance the push by community gardeners has forced the


City of New York to support the formation of land trusts that research and

preserve a set percentage of vacant land for Urban Agriculture projects.

On the complete opposite side we have the case of Denver and

Chicago. The Denver metro area is home to DUG (Denver Urban Gardens).

They are an association that has existed for more than 30 years; whose

focus has been to organize, unite, and support all Urban Agriculture

programs in the city. It has strong local support from community and civic

leaders by virtue of its practice and was instrumental in promoting the

Grow Local Colorado Proclamation that ensured the city of Denver would

strive to be ecologically sustainable through maintaining a local food

source. In a similar vein the Chicago Urban Agriculture movement is

starting to take shape. Chicago is a heavily gentrified city where food

deserts exist in neighborhoods of strong minority populations. Yet, over the

course of the last 10 years large Urban Agriculture programs have begun to

reshape those food deserts and improve their neighborhoods. The value of

Urban Agriculture programs in the city have been the subject of policy

reports (The Chicago Council, 2012) to analyze their scope and promise as

avenues of community health. This is further seen through the partnerships

between Urban Agriculture programs and organizations from the south side

with the CLOCC (Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago Children) group,

which associates obesity prevention with a source of food security. All the

work that different Urban Agriculture programs have done throughout the

city has raised civic support from Mayor Rahm Emmanuel (Office of the


Mayor, 2013). The Chicago Lights Urban Farm is an example of one of these

Urban Agriculture programs. The farm is located in the old Cabrini Green

neighborhood where the population is mixed income and racially diverse. It

has a produce stand where crops are sold to the public and also offers a

delivery service for those people that are not able to visit the farm. It

employs neighborhood kids through partnership with the After School

Matters program and teaches them the value of a job. The surrounding

community has access to different allotment beds in one area of the farm

that they use for their own gardening projects. The Chicago Lights farm

offers cooking classes so that the kids can learn how to use the vegetables

that they help grow. It is an Urban Agriculture program that ensures food

security exists in the neighborhood by providing access, availability and

utility.

Revisiting the Problem with Solutions in Mind

Although different cities around the country have strong food

movements; they pale in comparison to the status quo. Industrial

Agriculture is still the current system of farming and continues to affect the

environment and the health of communities. Urban Agriculture programs

can serve as viable options for reform. Policy changes at the federal level

would need to happen in order to support what is already a socially

accepted and implemented trend in food production. This next section

outlines two approaches to changing federal policy and the strengths and

weaknesses of each.


Approach A consists of a bottom-up system of change. Urban

Agriculture programs, as described above, have a wide gamut of benefits7

and have been supported throughout many cities and states (National

Council of State Legislatures, 2014). Yet, federal policy is unreflective of

this progression. In order to affect policy change Urban Agriculture

programs must develop strong ties between their different organizations

throughout a city and have this united group focus on promoting Urban

Agriculture systems as a means of ensuring human rights (Chilton, 2009)

through access to food. Partnerships with local health departments and

hospitals (George, 2015) would add a level of credibility to the association

between Urban Agriculture, disease prevention, and health improvements

in individuals. These partnerships provide a stronger front for Urban

Agriculture and could be used to ensure better state funding, thereby

increasing the attention the federal government places on Urban

Agriculture programs.

This approach has the benefit of having much of the groundwork

done, as evidence through the steady gains most Urban Agriculture systems

are showing. Yet, they require a lot of attention in organizing and rallying.

The Advocates for Urban Agriculture in Chicago understand that the best

way to ensure these types of programs remain active is through community

and civic support, but to do that they need facts and figures. To that end

they have worked on a mapping system that shows all the farms, gardens

7 Figure 7 provides a flow chart depicting the benefits associated with Urban Agriculture programs


and different types of Urban Agriculture programs throughout the city. The

hope is that this proves how important this type of food movement is to the

people of Chicago. Although this is similar to what Denver is doing; these

are only two examples of widespread organizing in two different cities.

Another limitation this approach presents is that there is no lengthy data set

relating economic improvement or health to Urban Agriculture. A cost-

benefit analysis of the different models of Urban Agriculture in a given city

that incorporates health measures of BMI8 (Robinson, 2009 and Zick, 2013)

would prove useful in understanding the dynamic nature of these programs

and can provide a quantifiable data set of benefits.

Approach B is a top-down one. In this approach we encourage strong

advocating for a restructuring of the Federal Farm Bill. The existing

legislation, as described elsewhere, does not explicitly exclude or support

Urban Agriculture programs. The avenues that exist to provide funds are

often tangled in other types of programs or are hard to find and qualify for.

This causes a misallocation of funds and does little to help federal

legislatures understand what Urban Agriculture is. Amy Mersol-Barg (2014)

mentions how providing a consistent definition for Urban Agriculture would

ensure that funds set aside for these types of programs remain available.

Adding a new title for Urban Agriculture would improve this by funneling all

programs and funds under one readily available section. Furthermore, the

establishing of a concise definition and understanding of the many facets

8 BMI refers to the body mass index, which is a common measuring tool for obesity and nutrition


Urban Agriculture programs have could be used to join funds from other

titles. The SNAP program is under constant attack from legislatures who

consider it a system of hand outs and so budget cuts stem from this

program first. Larger Urban Agriculture programs have the benefit of

incorporating a job training and employment aspect. In this way SNAP

funds could be allocated to the improvement of Urban Agriculture programs

as well as being used to allow access at farmer’s markets, like they are now.

The $8 billion dollars in cuts from the current farm bill could be

restructured to improve the nutrition aspect of the bill. Research and

Development funds could also be joined to Urban Agriculture programs.

Certain institutions, like The Plant9 in Chicago, have taken large steps in

incorporating a zero-waste policy through researching anaerobic digestion

as a means of producing biofuels from their different sustainable agriculture

partners. These types of technological advances in the production of local

food have large farm implications and would benefit from federal funding.

In the same way funds from conservation efforts could be joined to Urban

Agriculture programs that show steady environmental stewardship,

restoration and conservation efforts in a city or rural town.

This approach would be the most effective as it addresses the

underlying problem of federal policy directly and not through city and then

state legislatures. It would also encourage large agribusiness and energy

companies to change their strategies to better mirror the social trends of

9 http://www.plantchicago.com/


local food movements. In addition, a federal policy change would show that

there is support from the federal government for state and city programs

and thereby fosters support and trust from local communities. Yet, some of

the same limitations exist. Strong policy reform at the federal level would

need hard evidence that it is necessary to do so. A cost-benefit analysis

comparing the current farm bill and one incorporating these changes would

be the best way to show revenue saved from restricting the bill. Also, the

same types of economic and health studies would have to be presented to

show that these programs are necessary. Finally, a model Urban Agriculture

system, incorporating gardens, farms and other bio-tech approaches, would

have to be presented as a template for use in other areas of the country.

This would show how federal support and funds would be used properly;

aside from funding current programs.

Concluding Remarks

In light of the similar drawbacks from either approach, it is strongly

felt that a combined effort of both should be promoted. There already exists

a strong local food movement throughout the country. It requires time for

organizing and rallying, but that could happen in conjunction with federal

appeal for restructuring the Farm Bill, which expires in 2018. In that time

studies and models can be done that quantifiably show the benefits of

Urban Agriculture. It is the hope of this brief that the reader understands

the important impact agriculture has on the environment and the

community. Agriculture is a necessity for our way of life, but adopting a


sustainable approach through the different Urban Agriculture methods and

embracing working models of Urban Agriculture programs is the more

ethical means of providing food. Changing policy through community

activism and research is the future outlook of this piece of work as it moves

forward to clearly define the role of Urban Agriculture within the Public

Health sector.


APPENDIX – A: Figures and Charts

Figure 1: County level access to a supermarket or supercenter (Morton, 2007)


Figure 2: Food Deserts by Distance and Food Deserts by Race (Gallagher, 2006)

Industrialized Agriculture Practices

SES (Socio Economic Status) of an individual:

income, race, gender, etc. Food Insecurity

Physical Barriers Nutrition

Education

Figure 3: Relation of IA to Community Health

Medical Problems of the farming comm.

and surrounding pop.

Petroleum Industry


Figure 4: Net Change in Agriculture (ProAg, 2014)

Figure 5: Fertilizer Use in US Agriculture (USDA, 2013)


Figure 6: Cost of 2014 Farm Bill (Plumer, 2014)


Figure 7: Flow chart of Urban Agriculture Benefits


References

American Planning Association. (2003). How Cities Use Parks to..Create Safer Neighborhoods. Retrieved from: https://www.planning.org/cityparks/briefingpapers/saferneighborhoods.htm

Baffes, J. and Dennis, A. Long Term Drivers of Food Prices. World Bank Development Prospects Group. 2013. Available at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2013/05/21/000158349_20130521131725/Rendered/PDF/WPS6455.pdf.

Bohlke, John-K. (2002). Groundwater Recharge and Agricultural Contamination. Hydrogeology Journal, 10:153–179.

California Dept. of Pesticide Reporting. Pesticide Use Reporting-2011 Summary Data. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur11rep/11_pur.htm

Carney P, et al. (2012). Impact of a Community Gardening Project on Vegetable Intake, Food Security and Family Relationships: A Community-based Participatory Research Study. Journal of Community Health, 37(4):874-881.

Castro D, Samuels M, and Harman A. (2013). Growing Healthy Kids: A Community Garden–Based Obesity Prevention Program. American Journal of Preventative Medicine; 44(3S3):S193-S199.

Chilton, Mariana PhD, MPH and Donald Rose PhD, MPH. (2009). A Rights-Based Approach to Food Insecurity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health - Framing Health Matters,; 99(7): 1203-1211.

Children's Health Watch. (September, 2013). Too Hungry to Learn: Food Insecurity and School Readiness. Retrieved from: http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/toohungrytolearn_report.pdf

Cockburn, Myles et. Al. (2011). Prostate Cancer and Ambient Pesticide Exposure in Agriculturally Intensive Areas in California. American Journal of Epidemiology, 173(11):1280–1288.

Cook M. Reducing Water Pollution from Animal Feeding Operations. Testimony before Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of


Representatives, 13 May 1998. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ocirpage/hearings/testimony/105_1997_1998/051398.htm

Davis, Donald R. (2004). Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999. Journal of American College of Nutrition; 23(6).

Dead Zone: Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA. 2009. Available at: http://www.noaa.gov/factsheets/new%20version/dead_zones.pdf

Despommier, D. (2010). The Vertical Farm. Martin’s Press, New York.

Despommier, D. (2013). Farming up the city: the rise of urban vertical farms. Trends in Biotechnology, 31(7).

Food Systems Report. The Chicago Community Trust. 2009.

Fowler, C. and Mooney, P. (1990). Shattering: Food, Politics, and Loss of Genetic Diversity. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press,.

Freudenberg, N. et al. (2011). Can a Food Justice Movement Improve Nutrition and Health? A Case Study of the Emerging Food Movement in New York City. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 88(4): 623-636.

Gallagher, Mari. (2006). Good Food: Examining the Impact of Food Deserts on Public Health in Chicago. Chicago: Mari Gallagher Research and Consulting Group. Available at: http://www.marigallagher.com/site_media/dynamic/project_files/Chicago_Food_Desert_Report.pdf ed.

Gee, Gilbert C. and Devon C. Payne-Sturges. (2004). Environmental Health Disparities: A Framework Integrating Psychosocial and Environmental Concepts. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(17): 1645-1653.

George D, Rovniak L, Kraschnewski J, Hanson R, and Sciamanna C. (2015). A growing opportunity: Community gardens affiliated with US hospitals and academic health centers. Preventive Medicine Reports, 2:35-39.

Golden, Sheila. (2013). Urban Agriculture Impacts: Social, Health and Economic: A Literature Review. Retrieved from: http://asi.ucdavis.edu/resources/publications/UA%20Lit%20Review-%20Golden%20Reduced%2011-15.pdf


Goldner et. al. (2010). Pesticide Use and Thyroid Disease Among Women in the Agricultural Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 171:455–464.

Hale, J. et al. (2011). Connecting food environments and health through the relational nature of aesthetics: Gaining insight through the community gardening experience. Social Science and Medicine, 72(11): 1853-1863.

Harding, Anne. Why gardening is good for your health. CNN Health. 2011. Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/07/08/why.gardening.good/

Healthy Food Chicago. (2012). A Recipe for Healthy Places: Addressing the Intersection of Food and Obesity in Chicago. Available at: http://www.healthyplaceschicago.org/food/FoodPlan-draftforcomment.pdf

Horrigan, Leo. Et al. (2002). How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(5).

EconomyWatch. (2010). Industrial Agriculture. Retrieved from: http://www.economywatch.com/agriculture/types/industrial.html

Johnson, Renee and Jim Monke. (July 23, 2014). What is the Farm Bill?. RS22131. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22131.pdf. Accessed: April 18, 2015.

McCormack L, Laska M, Larson N, and Story M. (2010). Review of the Nutritional Implications of Farmers’ Markets and Community Gardens: A Call for Evaluation and Research Efforts. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(3):399-408.

Mersol-Barg, Amy E. (2014). Urban Agriculture and The Modern Farm Bill: Cultivating Prosperity in America’s Rust Belt. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 24(1), 279-314. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/delpf/vol24/iss1/6

Morton L. and Blanchard T. (2007). Starved for Access: Life in Rural America’s Food Deserts. Rural Realities, Vol 1. Issue 4.

National Council of State Legislatures. (February, 2014). Urban Agriculture in State Legislation. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/research/agriculture-and-rural-development/urban-agriculture-state-legislation.aspx


National Family Farm Coalition. The Facts Behind King Corn. Retrieved from: http://nffc.net/Learn/Fact%20Sheets/King%20Corn%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

National Gardening Association. (2009). The Impact of Home and Community Gardening In America [White Paper]. Retrieved from http://www.gardenresearch.com/files/2009-Impact-of-Gardening-in-America-White-Paper.pdf

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. Farming for the Future: A Sustainable Agriculture Agenda for the 2012 Food and Farm Bill. Available at: http://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/2012_3_21NSACFarmBillPlatform.pdf

Neff, Roni A. et al. (2011). Peak Oil, Food Systems, and Public Health: Peak Petroleum. American Journal of Public Health, 101(9).

Office of the Mayor. (2013). Mayor Emmanual Launches New "Farmers for Chicago" Network for Chicago Urban Farmers [Press Release]. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2013/March/3.15.13UrbanFarmers.pdf

Phillips, C. (2004). Health in Rural America: Remembering the Importance of Place. American Journal of Public Health, 94(10): 1661-1663.

Pimentel, David. (2006). Impacts of Organic Farming on the Efficiency of Energy Use in Agriculture: An Organic Center State of Science Review. Retrieved from: http://www.organicvalley.coop/fileadmin/pdf/ENERGY_SSR.pdf

Plumer, Brad. (January 28th, 2014). The $956 billion Farm Bill, in one graph. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/

Proag. ProAg Friday Fun Ag Fact: 2012 Agriculture Census Preliminary Results. Available at: http://www.proag.com/News/ProAg-Friday-Fun-Ag-Fact-2012-Agriculture-Census-Preliminary-Results-2014-02-28/1809

Natural Resources Defense Council. Pollution from Giant Livestock Farms Threatens Public Health. Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.asp.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/


Rides at the Door, R. How the Farm Bill Affects You [Power Point Slides]. Retrieved from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_035671.pdf

Robinson-O’Brien R, Story M, and Heim S. (2009). Impact of Garden-Based Youth Nutrition Intervention Programs: A Review. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(2):273-280.

Salatin, Joel. (2012). Folks, This Ain't Normal: A Farmer's Advice for Happier Hens, Healthier People, and a Better World. Center Street.

Schnell, Steven M. (2013). Food miles, local eating, and community supported agriculture: putting local food in its place. Agriculture and Human Values, 30: 615-628.

Smith, C. et al. (2003). Community Gardens and Politics of Scale in New York City. The Geographical Review, 93(2): 193-212.

Staniford, Stuart. (2008). Why Peak Oil Actually Helps Industrial Agriculture. Available at: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3481

Teig, E., et al. (2009). Collective Efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health and Place.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. (2012). U.S. Agriculture and Nutrition Policy Statement: Transforming American Food and Agriculture Policy [White Paper]. Retrieved from: http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/Agriculture_and_Nutrition_Policy_Statement%281%29.pdf

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. (2013). Feeding an Urban World: A Call to Action. Emerging Leaders Perspectives. Avilable at: http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/EL_2013_UrbanFoodSecurity.pdf

Thu, K. et. Al. (1997). A Control Study of the Physical and Mental Health of Residents Living Near a Large-scale Swine Operation. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 3(1): 13-26.

USDA Economic Research Service. (2013). Fertilizer Use & Markets. Avaiable at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/chemical-inputs/fertilizer-use-markets.aspx


Zick C, Smith K, Kowaleski-Jones L, Uno C, and Merrill B. (2013). Harvesting More Than Vegetables: The Potential Weight Control Benefits of Community Gardening. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6):1110-5.

ecospeakdotnet.files.wordpress.com · web viewin order to affect policy change urban agriculture...

Documents