Nutrients and non-essential metals in darkibor kale grown at urban and rural farms: A pilot study.

Kale is a nutrient-dense leafy vegetable associated with wide-ranging health benefits. It is tolerant of drought and temperature fluctuations, and could thus serve an increasingly important role in providing a safe and nutritious food supply during the climate crisis, while kale's ease of cultivation and ability to be grown in a wide range of soils make it a good fit for urban agriculture. In this pilot study we explored potential differences between kale grown at urban versus rural farms. We planted kale seedlings (Darkibor variety) at three urban and four rural farms in and around Baltimore City, Maryland, instructed farmers to cultivate them using their usual growing practices, harvested the kale from fields and points of distribution, and analyzed it for concentrations of carotenoids, vitamins C and K1, ten nutritional elements, and eight non-essential metals. Although sample sizes for some analyses were in some cases too small to produce statistically significant results, we identified potentially meaningful differences in concentrations of several components between urban and rural kale samples. Compared to urban samples, mean concentrations of carotenoids and vitamins were 22-38% higher in rural field samples. By contrast, mean concentrations for eight nutritional elements were higher in urban field samples by as much as 413% for iron. Compared to rural field samples, mean concentrations of nine non-essential metals were higher in urban samples, although lead and cadmium concentrations for all samples were below public health guidelines. Some urban-rural differences were more pronounced than those identified in prior research. For six elements, variance within urban and rural farms was greater than variance between urban and rural farms, suggesting urbanicity may not be the primary driver of some observed differences. For some nutrients, mean concentrations were higher than upper ranges reported in prior estimates, suggesting kale may have the potential to be more nutrient-dense than previously estimated. The nutritive and metals composition of this important crop, and the factors that influence it, merit continued investigation given its growing popularity.

(Non)targeted Chemical Analysis and Risk Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Darkibor Kale Grown at Rural and Urban Farms.

This study investigated the presence and human hazards associated with pesticides and other anthropogenic chemicals identified in kale grown in urban and rural environments. Pesticides and related compounds (i.e., surfactants and metabolites) in kale samples were evaluated using a nontargeted data acquisition for targeted analysis method which utilized a pesticide mixture containing >1,000 compounds for suspect screening and quantification. We modeled population-level exposures and assessed noncancer hazards to DEET, piperonyl butoxide, prometon, secbumeton, terbumeton, and spinosyn A using nationally representative estimates of kale consumption across life stages in the US. Our findings indicate even sensitive populations (e.g., pregnant women and children) are not likely to experience hazards from these select compounds were they to consume kale from this study. However, a strictly nontargeted chemical analytical approach identified a total of 1,822 features across all samples, and principal component analysis revealed that the kale chemical composition may have been impacted by agricultural growing practices and environmental factors. Confidence level 2 compounds that were ≥5 times more abundant in the urban samples than in rural samples (p < 0.05) included chemicals categorized as "flavoring and nutrients" and "surfactants" in the EPA's Chemicals and Products Database. Using the US-EPA's Cheminformatics Hazard Module, we identified that many of the nontarget compounds have predicted toxicity scores of "very high" for several end points related to human health. These aspects would have been overlooked using traditional targeted analysis methods, although more information is needed to ascertain whether the compounds identified through nontargeted analysis are of environmental or human health concern. As such, our approach enabled the identification of potentially hazardous compounds that, based on their hazard assessment score, merit follow-up investigations.

Urban Soil Safety Policies: The Next Frontier for Mitigating Lead Exposures and Promoting Sustainable Food Production.

Urban soils bear the persistent legacy of leaded gasoline and past industrial practices. Soil safety policies (SSPs) are an important public health tool with the potential to inform, identify, and mitigate potential health risks faced by urban growers, but little is known about how these policies may protect growers from exposures to lead and other soil contaminants. We reviewed and evaluated 43 urban agriculture (UA) policies in 40 US cities pertaining to soil safety. About half of these cities had a least one SSP that offered recommendations or provided services for soil testing. Eight cities had at least one SSP containing a requirement pertaining to any topic (e.g., soil testing, a specific best practice for growing). We found notable inconsistencies across SSPs for "acceptable" levels of lead in soils and the activities and behaviors recommended at each level. We specify research needed to inform revisions to US Environmental Protection Agency guidance for lead in soils specific to UA. We conclude with a series of recommendations to guide the development or revision of SSPs.

The Safe Urban Harvests Study: A Community-Driven Cross-Sectional Assessment of Metals in Soil, Irrigation Water, and Produce from Urban Farms and Gardens in Baltimore, Maryland.

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.

A critical examination of the available data sources for estimating meat and protein consumption in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To 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. DESIGN: We 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. RESULTS: Together, 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. CONCLUSIONS: In 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.