Many of those sites were listed on a map from the City of Long Beach Office of Sustainability

While the condition of some women, communities of color, and low-income communities, for example, has improved in some regards, such communities ultimately still experience the brunt of an unjust food system, particularly in terms of wealth, land access, access to positions of power, and degree of democratic influence. Thus, given both the racial/ethnic, gender, and economic inequities found, and the structural barriers to addressing such inequities found, this report also posits a couple long term strategies from which to envision a new life for the Farm Bill in particular, and food and agriculture policy in general. The first, for example, concerns Farm Bill programs that have the potential to be effective anti-poverty programs, such as SNAP. One approach could be overhauling such programs so that they stay beyond the influence of corporate interest groups and lobbying efforts. This, in essence, would require removing such programs from the Farm Bill, redesigning them primarily as anti-poverty and economic stimulus programs, and recovering, in part, their original potential. Another, for example, concerns the Farm Bill’s remaining titles that have somewhat improved the conditions of marginalized communities, such as its Rural Development programs. One approach could be keeping programs geared toward rural development within the Farm Bill while giving them a more central role, thus uplifting farmers as well the communities in which they live and work. Ultimately, given such short term and long term strategies, this report neither calls simply for minor reforms to the Farm Bill, nor calls for throwing it out and doing something different. Rather, it calls for a combination of both.The US Farm Bill reflects a prime opportunity to challenge corporate control and structural racialization from multiple angles: social, political, economic, commercial grow room and environmental. It also reflects a prime opportunity to address corporate control and structural racialization within multiple time frames and at multiple scales: from the scale of the food system to that of society itself.

Yet such attempts at structural change will have little traction unless such demands come from a very powerful social movement. That is, structural change requires a strong and united movement that is capable of organizing and mobilizing at the state and national level, and that ultimately aims to produce conditions required for food sovereignty, including food access, health equity, fair and living wages, land access, just immigration policy, restraints upon corporations, non-exploitative farm labor conditions, and environmental well-being, among others, in particular, and racial/ethnic, gender, and economic justice, more broadly. Such a movement would thus need to encompass grassroots and advocacy organizations that are anti-capitalist, new economy, anti-racist, and feminist, and that are oriented toward environmental justice, labor rights, immigration rights, food justice, climate justice, and human rights, among other strategies and goals. The food sovereignty movement itself already embodies much of this coalitionary work and is carried forth by a wide ranging group of organizations including, among others: La Via Campesina, The Network of Farmers and Agricultural Producers Organizations of West Africa , Eastern Africa Farmers Federation , Eastern and Southern Africa Farmers’ Forum, We Are the Solution, and other agrarian-based farmers’ movements; the International Planning Committee on Food Sovereignty; ATTAC; We Are the Solution; World March of Women; many food justice and rights-based movements; and indigenous peoples movements in North America and elsewhere that engage with the particular histories of colonialism in their respective regions. This movement necessarily calls for food systems change on the basis of entitlements, structural reforms to markets and property regimes, and class-based, redistributive demands for land, water and resources. Demands for food sovereignty are frequently anti-imperialist, anti-corporatist and/or anti-capitalist. In this framework for social, political, and economic change, the Farm Bill then is a barrier to true structural change, as it itself has become a pillar of neoliberalism, and has long impeded democratic influence with layers of committees. However, although the food sovereignty movement, broadly, is oriented towards a number of critical issues , there exists a gap that this report has aimed to address. 

That is, still lacking from the core of such efforts—particularly as they take shape in the United States—is an anti-racist critique that acknowledges and aims to address the underlying racial logic and history of not only the Farm Bill, but of all domains of life—social, political, economic, and environmental—including neoliberalism, and thus corporate control, itself. Such a movement must not be afraid to mark this racial logic and history as that of white supremacy, and its concomitant logics and histories as those of heteropatriarchy and colonialism and imperialism, visible, at the very least, in all the ways outlined in this report. In short, a just and democratic food system is not simply the end goal. Rather, it is also a strategic means to challenging the structures that impede the possibility of a just life for all peoples in all domains of life. Only when the agenda and work of the broad-based food sovereignty movement upholds a meta-narrative that takes into account wealth, race/ethnicity, and gender, can the struggle that low-income communities, communities of color, and women face with regard to the food system be connected to the struggles they face elsewhere—including labor, employment, health, housing, the school-to-prison pipeline, and police violence. Only then can such a movement truly strive for a just society that upholds the dignity for all peoples.To address such concerns, it is imperative for researchers to participate in UA actively, make findings accessible to participants, and/or involve community members in the research process.Local government officials should promote UA sites and ensure that information on UA is frequently updated. As discussed by Jackson et al. , who conducted an inventory of UA in Los Angeles County, online sources like Google Maps may be unreliable due to the “transitory status” of UA sites, which “are subject to sporadic vacancy of land, funding, and active volunteerism.” During this study, I had difficulty determining whether UA sites were still active or not due to the absence of information, outdated websites, or out of service phone numbers. I identified 14 UA sites that were either rebuilt, changed management, or ceased operations. As of April 2024, the city has not yet published an updated map. To aid the creation of UA sites, cities can incorporate pro-agriculture zoning codes and UA incentive programs. City zoning codes for Long Beach permit agricultural activities and allow UA within multi-family, commercial, and light industrial zones .

Long Beach’s Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone Program offers a property tax reduction to vacant lot owners who allow their property to be used for UA. The UAIZ program connects owners to local farmers and gardeners, who are required to use organic agriculture methods . Landowners are eligible to participate in the UAIZ program if their lot is between 0.10 to 3 acres in size, does not have habitable structures, and is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor Database . However, UA leaders expressed concerns about the uncertainty of leasing land from the city and private owners. The UAIZ Program’s lease-term was a minimum of five years. After the term ends, landowners can decide not to renew the lease, forcing UA participants to move. UA leaders were also required to obtain administrative use permits from the city, which can be time-consuming. Cities could offer affordable, dry racking expedited permits for UA sites. The City of Escondido’s “Adopt-A-Lot” policy encouraged the use of vacant land for community gardens by offering a no-fee permit and waiving normal zoning requirements . Policymakers can foster the success of UA sites, especially those in low-income neighborhoods, through resources and funding. They can demonstrate support by providing in-kind donations, speaking at community events, and promoting UA in press releases and social media coverage. UA sites needed resources for capacity building, such as assistance with grant writing, fundraising, and hiring and training staff. Grants awarded by federal, state, county, and city departments were often UA sites’ largest source of funding. The State of California, for example, bolstered Ground Education’s ability to deliver gardening lessons to thousands of students. In 2022, the nonprofit was awarded $315,000 through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program, which funds after-school and summer school enrichment programs that serve disadvantaged students . To conclude, the longevity of UA sites is determined by partnerships between multiple entities, including those at the policy-level. Policymakers possess the power to decide whether community members have the right to build and grow their UA sites. Even thriving UA sites are at risk of closure, if the land they exist on can be sold or repurposed at any time. Therefore, UA leaders call for policies and funding opportunities that incentivize the development and sustained operation of urban gardens and farms. Policymakers should consider UA as a long-term investment in their communities’ health for future generations.Agricultural practices impact and influence climate change and air quality, with an estimated 23% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions stemming from Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use . In the United States alone, livestock contributes an estimated 66% of total agricultural GHG emissions . The primary emissions stem from greenhouse gases, such as methane , nitrous oxide , carbon dioxide , as well as air pollutants, such as ammonia , a gas-phase precursor to fine particulate matter. CH4 is more efficient at trapping infrared radiation than CO2, with a lifetime of about 10 years in the troposphere and a global warming potential about 28 times that of CO2 on a 100-year scale . Since 2007, the global mole fraction of atmospheric CH4 has steadily increased from 1781 ppb to 1895 ppb. Meanwhile, the 13C/12C isotopic ratio of CH4 has shifted to more negative values, suggesting a shift towards more biogenic sources that may include an increase in agricultural sources . Atmospheric N2O levels are about 334 ppb and have increased by more than 20% since 1750, with a GWP 265 times that of CO2. The agricultural sector contributes an estimated 52% of anthropogenic N2O emissions . In addition, global emissions of NH3 have doubled in the last 70 years, and are expected to rise, posing a concern for poor air quality . In the United States, California leads the nation in dairy production, with 1.8 million milk cows and $6.5 billion in milk sales . In the last decade, the State of California has emerged as a leader in GHG reduction strategies. Under California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [Assembly Bill 32 ], the State mandates that GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 . Additionally, in 2016, Legislature passed SB 32, which directs the State to reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, along with SB 1383, which directs efforts towards reducing short lived climate pollutants that have a strong climate forcing potential. The dairy sector contributes a substantial amount of CH4, N2O, and NH3 emissions, and as such are important to study to meet these requirements. For instance, dairy enteric fermentation and manure management, account for an estimated 27% and 25% of total CH4 emissions in the State inventory, respectively . Although N2O is not yet targeted by SB 1383, it is estimated that N2O emissions from manure management account for about 13% of the statewide total N2O . However, there is high uncertainty in emission estimates of CH4, N2O, and NH3 from dairy farms in California, in large part due to a dearth of measurements conducted at the facility level and across timescales. So far, there have only been two studies that have investigated on-farm seasonal CH4 emissions in California . In addition, there have only been two source attribution studies in California that have used isotopic signatures of CH4 that were conducted in Southern California. Another useful source attribution method is to use enhancement ratios, which are defined as ratios between enhancements of trace gases above atmospheric background mole fractions. There has only been one such study investigating dairy farms in California, but was limited to only one season during winter Anaerobic microbial breakdown of carbohydrates in the digestive tract of cattle produces about 30-40% of CH4 as a by-product . Ruminants, such as cattle, have large fermentative cavities in the beginning of the digestive tract that break down carbohydrates and plant cell walls, and form acetate, propionate, butyrate, succinate, H2, and CO2 through the Embden-Meyerhof-Parnas pathway . Methanogens then use the by-product H2 and reduce CO2 into CH4 .