The golf course I grew up next to had raspberry bushes on a bunch of holes. My dad and I used to eat the berries while waiting to tee off. As a teenager with other priorities, I never thought about drift from the pesticides used on the course or any other risks.
I just saw the raspberries as a free mid-round snack. 
According to a Q&A column in the Los Angeles Times real estate section there are some smart folks out there looking at safety and liability of landowners around consuming foraged wild edibles.
Question: Some areas of our very mature development have creeks, streams, trees and dense vegetation similar to forested areas where wild edible delicacies are usually foraged. None of these delicacies were planted by the association, and because of their unique flavors, they’re considered culinary delights. These free treats are all the more attractive because no dogs are allowed in this area and the association uses no pesticides. We hired 24-hour roaming security guards to prevent theft, but the cost was outrageous.
We have ostrich fern, or Matteuccia Struthiopteris, that stays green year round with little care and is free from disease and pests. These ferns thrive on recycled leaf mulch from our other trees, making them cost-effective landscape. Unfortunately they are also a very popular delicacy: fiddleheads. They are bright green, tightly wound curled fronds on a thick stem, prized for their high nutritional content and incomparable taste.
The base of some of our trees have wild morel mushrooms; then there’s wild ramp, a garlic/leek vegetable combination that blankets the ground. Both are sought-after ingredients by high-end restaurants.
No homes abut these forested areas, so the public has access. To remove the wild delicacies would be labor intensive and prohibitively costly, as would fencing, which would apply only to those living outside the development. Even if possible, removing the forested areas could substantially devalue our development. Some owners want to leave things as they are, others want hands off forested areas. Even though no one’s sued the association, as a director I’m worried that a lot of things can go wrong. How should the board handle this?
Answer: A non-cookie-cutter development that is cost-effective, with exotic landscaping, can be a great benefit to the association, increasing the value of all property and aesthetic appeal of the community as a whole, while adding a dimension of interest and unique appeal. But you are right to be nervous if there is a danger of poison and liability to your development and its owners.
Associations are required to remove dangerous conditions and take reasonable steps to ensure owners and visitors (whether invited or trespassing) are warned of potential danger, especially those that are not easily visible or widely known.
A risk analysis balances costs such as insurance premiums, potential litigation and the task’s difficulty versus benefits to the community. Fortunately no one has sued yet. But for every property condition posing a threat it is the board’s duty to mitigate damages. Where a board fails to consider the best course of action and where damages could have been avoided through reasonable efforts, the association may not escape liability.