Soils are an important consideration for individuals, community groups, and local governments becoming involved in urban agriculture. In many situations, urban soil has been contaminated and degraded by past industrial, dumping, construction or other activity, and adjacent buildings where lead-based paint has been applied. Elevated levels of lead are fairly common in urban soils and pose health risks, especially to young children who can ingest soil while playing or helping in gardens.

A community garden is a great place to grow nutritious food, fresh flowers, and even a more vibrant and sharing community! This publication tells about all sorts of community gardens and shows you how you can set one up in your own neighborhood.

This guide provides urban food producers in California with an overview of Federal and California food safety laws and regulations that may impact their operations.

According to the United States Census, California is the most urban state in the nation. Although there are many outstanding examples of urban farms in California, in general, urban agriculture (UA) has been slower to gain momentum here than in some other states with large urban populations. Over the past several years, urban agriculture’s popularity in California has begun to escalate, with strong emerging interest in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, San Diego, Los Angeles and other metropolitan communities. One challenge for urban farmers and municipal decision makers engaged with UA in California has been limited availability of relevant information and technical assistance. A new project team at the University of California Cooperative Extension, part of the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR) is working to develop web-based educational resources that will be grounded in a needs assessment that is currently underway. The needs assessment includes a literature review, an internal survey of UC ANR personnel, and community clientele interviews. This paper will report on preliminary findings and analyses of the needs assessment, particularly how UC ANR personnel are engaged with UA, and what tools they think would best serve urban farmers. We suggest implications for those involved with UA, such as personnel of land-grant universities, local governments and non-profits seeking to address the needs of urban farmers in an environment of constrained resources.

In the U.S. there has been considerable interest in connecting low-income households to alternative food networks like Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). To learn more about this possibility we conducted a statewide survey of CSA members in California. A total of 1149 members from 41 CSAs responded. Here we answer the research question: How do CSA members’ (1) socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds, (2) household conditions potentially interfering with membership, and (3) CSA membership experiences vary between lower-income households (LIHHs) and higher-income households (HIHHs)? We divided members into LIHHs (making under $50,000 annually) and HIHHs (making over $50,000 annually). We present comparisons of LIHHs’ and HIHHs’ (1) employment, race/ethnicity, household composition and education, use of food support, and enjoyment of food-related activities; (2) conditions interfering with membership and major life events; and (3) sources of information influencing decision to join, reasons for joining, ratings of importance of and satisfaction with various CSA attributes, gaps between importance of and satisfaction with various CSA attributes, valuing of the share and willingness to pay more, and impacts of membership. We find that LIHHs are committed CSA members, often more so than HIHHs, and that CSA members in California are disproportionately white, but that racial disproportionality decreases as incomes increase. We conclude by considering: (1) the economic risks that LIHHs face in CSA membership, (2) the intersection of economic risks with race/ethnicity and cultural coding in CSA; and (3) the possibilities of increasing participation of LIHH in CSA.

Urban farming is an important component of California agriculture, but lack of agricultural census data or common definitions makes it difficult to track and understand. In 2017–2018, a team of University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR) researchers and extension professionals developed a workshop series for urban farmers in California based on results of a prior needs assessment. After conducting 16 workshops in the state's largest urban centers, the team evaluated what participants learned and how they put their knowledge into action. The evaluation highlighted urban farmers' ongoing challenges and found that economic issues such as profitability and land access are some of the greatest barriers for urban farming in California. An unexpected positive outcome was the opportunity for participants to network and meet other farmers. Urban farmers expressed the need for more opportunities for mentoring and building partnerships with other farmers and organizations. Evaluation results suggest that California's urban farmers may be more diverse than California farmers as a whole, and that they are often beginning farmers.

California is a landmark setting for studying produce recovery efforts and policy implications because of its global relevance in agricultural production, its complex network of food recovery organizations, and its environmental and public health regulations. Through a series of focus groups with organizations involved in produce recovery (gleaning organizations) and emergency food operations (food banks, food pantries), this study aimed to deepen our understanding of the current produce recovery system and determine the major challenges and opportunities related to the produce recovery system. Operational and systematic barriers to produce recovery were highlighted by both gleaning and emergency food operations. Operational barriers, such as the lack of appropriate infrastructure and limited logistical support were found to be a challenge across groups and were directly tied to inadequate funding for these organizations. Systematic barriers, such as regulations related to food safety or reducing food loss and waste, were also found to impact both gleaning and emergency food organizations, but differences were observed in how each type of regulation impacted each stakeholder group. To support the expansion of food recovery efforts, participants expressed need for better coordination within and across food recovery networks and more positive and transparent engagement from regulators to increase understanding of the specifics of their unique operational constraints. The focus group participants also provided critiques on how emergency food assistance and food recovery are inscribed within the current food system and for longer term goals of reducing food insecurity and food loss and waste a systematic change will be required.