Showing posts with label Food Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food Justice. Show all posts

Monday, January 28, 2013

Translating Cokespeak into English

The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently reported on a promotional video by Coca Cola that invites the American public to "come together" in the fight against obesity.  As a part of this report, the Center reposted Coke's video with edits and translations added that show the real meaning behind what Coke is saying.

When watching first the original Coke ad and then the translated version, I was reminded of how insidious and effective modern corporate advertising can be at using spin to bend the truth. It often requires substantial effort and knowledge to see past the glossy surface of a corporate public service announcement and get at the real core of what it means.  Despite working in a discipline that recognizes this, it's still sometimes hard to see through the smoke and mirrors, which is why responses like CSPI's video are important.
"Generally, when a company claims to be 'part of the solution' it means 'we know we're culpable so we must deflect the blame elsewhere,'" said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "So we thought it would be useful for consumers and policymakers to unpack similar examples of Coke's disingenuous corporate gobbledygook and present them in plain English."
Have a lovely, critically-minded evening,
-Melissa

PS, stay tuned for a report and photos from our Getting Started in Organic Farming Conference that just happened on Saturday January 26 - it was a wonderful event and we can't wait to tell you more!

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

The Power of Proper (or Improper) Food Labeling

Here at CT NOFA we've dealt a lot with food labeling.  We've written blog posts about it, linked to resources about it, and have an entire program dedicated to promoting GMO labeling efforts.  The labels on the foods we buy and eat are incredibly important because they let us know (we hope) what's in them.  If the food in question is something that's been minimally processed, like produce, labeling can tell us where it came from, who grew it, and how it was grown.  In the case of more highly processed foods with many ingredients, labeling is often the only way we can know for sure what's in them. 

Imagine a bag of processed snack food with no labeling on it whatsoever - just a blank bag with crunchy-feeling bits inside.  Without any labeling you would have no idea what it even was, let alone what's in it or how it tastes.  And let's be honest, we're all much less likely to buy a nondescript bag of snacks than we are to buy something that has a catchy description and graphic design tailored specifically to our tastes.  The world of food packaging is part of the advertising industry, a very lucrative industry, and we as consumers are the target audience.  It's in food manufacturers' best interests to label foods in such a way that will get us to buy them, whether that's through an honest and transparent portrayal of what's in the food and how the food was made, or through more deceptive means.  Government regulated food labels exist to mitigate deceptive labeling and promote a more honest food system, but not all labels - even some of the ones that sound really legitimate - actually mean anything legally.  And not all facts about the foods we eat (like GMOs) are actually required to be disclosed to consumers.

Take this story about two California mothers who are suing General Mills.  The label in question in this case is the "Natural" label, a term that's only regulated when applied to meats and poultry, and has absolutely no meaning when applied to snack foods like Nature Valley Granola Bars.  The lawsuit's main focus is on the natural label, but it's also the whole package - literally, the granola bars are in a package filled with design choices that give potential buyers that "wholesome, healthy feeling" - that is cause for concern.  With packaging that looks so close to nature, the contents of the box must be natural too, right?  It might be a little exhausting at first, but a little research and critical thinking before you head to the store can outsmart savvy advertisements later on. 

Here is a searchable database that explains what a large variety of labels really mean.  You can search by label, product category, or certifier.  Short on time?  A good bet is to briefly scrutinize the nutrition facts label and ingredients list on the product before putting it in your shopping cart.  It won't tell you how the food was made, but at least you'll know if that fruit juice is really all juice or if it has a bunch of added sugar, and if that sugar is "evaporated cane juice" (actual sugar) or high fructose corn syrup.  Plus, in the case of juice, that "100% juice" label does actually mean something!

Have a nutritionally enlightened day,
-Melissa

Friday, August 3, 2012

Roundup's Toxicity Goes Beyond Glyphosate

If you've been to this blog before, you've probably heard of Roundup - Monsanto's herbicide widely used to spray lawns, yards, and crops, especially those crops that have been genetically modified to resist Roundup's active ingredient, Glyphosate.  You've probably also heard of the health dangers of Glyphosate as shown in numerous laboratory tests.  What you may not know, however, is that one of the supposedly inert ingredients in Roundup, called polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, has been shown to not only be more dangerous on its own than Glyphosate, but also increase the damage Glyphosate can do to cells on its own by combining with it to more effectively penetrate clothing, safety equipment, and cell walls in the body.  

This article in Scientific American describes how a French team of scientists came to this conclusion after testing POEA and Roundup on human cells.  An excerpt reads:
POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.” 
“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens. 
The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.
The article then goes on to explain why an ingredient that causes more harm than the active ingredient can be  labeled as inert:
The term “inert ingredient” is often misleading, according to Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental organization. Federal law classifies all pesticide ingredients that don’t harm pests as “inert,” she said. Inert compounds, therefore, aren’t necessarily biologically or toxicologically harmless – they simply don’t kill insects or weeds.
If you want to avoid POEA and Glyphosate, buying more organic food, and more generally, avoiding Genetically Modified Organisms - a primary use of Roundup -  are great options.  Support mandatory labeling for GE foods, and add your voice to those advocating for the passage of Prop 37 in California.  Here in Connecticut, purchase groceries from a farmers market and get to know the farmer you're buying from.  If you know the farmers who grow your food, and ask them questions, you will know your food as well.

Have a great weekend!
-Melissa

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Oppositiion to California's GMO Labeling Initiative

Yesterday's blog post about the California GMO Labeling Ballot Initiative showcases a very important potential step toward eventual GMO labeling across the country.  California has the highest GDP of any state in the nation, a GDP higher than many countries, so passing a labeling initiative there is likely to cause a domino effect culminating in mandatory labeling across the US.  Because of this, one of the nation's largest food lobbies, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association, has made defeating the initiative - called Prop 37 - their "single-highest priority".

According to an editorial on Food Safety News,
In a recent speech to the American Soybean Association (most soy grown in the U.S. is genetically modified), Grocery Manufacturers Association President Pamela Bailey said that defeating the initiative "is the single-highest priority for GMA this year."

You may not know the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but its members represent the nation's largest food makers -- those with the most at stake in the battle over GMO labeling; for example, soft drink and snack giant PepsiCo, cereal makers Kellogg and General Mills, and of course, biotech behemoth Monsanto.

According to state filing reports, so far GMA has spent $375,000 on its efforts to oppose the labeling measure, with its members adding additional out-of-state lobbying power in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Since Prop 37 poses a significant threat to many of the nation's largest food makers, corporations that make a lot of money from the production and sale of Genetically Modified foods, it makes sense that the lobbying group that represents those interests would be fiercely fighting back.  This backlash, however, is promising because it shows just how powerful Prop 37 really is. Lobbying groups might have a lot of money on their side, but no amount of money can compete with a large group of voices speaking out in unison.

Here in Connecticut we might not be able to vote on Prop 37, but that doesn't mean that we can't speak out in support of it.  The more people nationwide who show their support of mandatory GMO labeling, both publicly and to their friends and neighbors, the more likely those in California who can vote on it are to hear us.  After all, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association is a giant national lobbying firm that is currently influencing the outcome of the vote, regardless of whether or not it's employees can actually vote on the ballot itself.  So talk to those around you and be outspoken, because your voice makes a difference.  Let's show California that we support their right to know what's in their food!

Have an outspoken day!
-Melissa

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree on the politics and business of organic food

Check out this all-new episode of The Business Beat, which aired 7/29/2012 on WICN/90.5 FM. 


Steve D'Agostino interviews Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).  They talk about the politics and business of organic food.

In the 1970s, with a degree in human ecology from the College of the Atlantic, now- Congresswoman Pingree started an organic farm on the island of North Haven, Maine. By selling produce to summer residents and raising sheep for wool, she built a thriving mail-order knitting business that eventually employed 10 people in her small community.

Rep. Pingree is still a small-business owner, operating the Nebo Inn and Restaurant on North Haven, which features locally grown food. After serving on the local school board, and as the town’s tax assessor, she went on to serve eight years in the Maine Senate, become the national CEO of Common Cause, and in 2008 get elected as a Democrat to represent Maine in Congress.

As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, Congresswoman Pingree is committed to helping reform farm policy -- with interests of small farmers and consumers in mind. Last year, she introduced the Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act — a comprehensive package of reforms to agriculture policy that will expand opportunities for local and regional farmers and make it easier for consumers to have access to healthy foods.


Don't forget, Rep. Pingree is one of the keynote speakers at the NOFA Summer Conference on August 10 - 12 at Umass-Amherst. She will speak on Friday, August 10 at 7:30 p.m. at the Campus Center auditorium.  Register for the conference today to take advantage of the excellent keynotes and workshops the Summer Conference has to offer.

Hope to see you at the Conference!
-Melissa

Thursday, June 14, 2012

DEADLINE TOMORROW: Sign up to Support Key Amendments to the Farm Bill

The Senate Food and Farm Bill Needs Your Help!

Please call your Senators - It's easy! The Food and Farm Bill is on the floor of the US Senate and your action is needed to make it better! Right now they are lining up support for amendments that are sorely needed in this bill. Please take action!

Please call your Senators and tell them what you want. If you are with an organization, please make calls and also sign on to letters.

Phone Calls: Just dial the Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121 Ask to be connected with one Senator from your state, and then call back and ask to speak with the other Senator. Once connected, introduce yourself and ask to speak with the agriculture staffer. Tell that staffer (or leave a message) what you support or opposes from the amendments, or other key points.

Key Senate Farm Bill Amendments:
Pick your issues and make the call! SUPPORT:

  • Brown- (SA 2362) The amendment includes important programs to farmers and local food infrastructure, beginning and socially disadvantaged farmer programs, including: Value-Added Producer Grants, Rural Microentrepeneur Assistance Program, Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program (Section 2501)
  • Tester (SA 2234)- This amendment will set aside 5% of annual funding for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative for public cultivar and breed development.
  • Grassley-Conrad (SA 2170) - This amendment will make it unlawful for a meatpacker to own, feed or control livestock intended for slaughter for more than 14 days before slaughter. This will reduce vertical integration of the livestock market and help independent and family growers compete.
  • Merkley-Feinstein-Sanders-Kerry (SA 2382) - This amendment will address barriers to make crop insurance more accessible to organic farmers.
  • Durbin-Coburn (SA2186) - reduces the federal premium support for farmers with Adjusted Gross Income of more than $750,000.
  • Cardin -(SA2219) This amendment would ensure that farmers receiving taxpayer-subsidized premium subsidies for crop insurance do not drain wetlands or farm erosion-prone soil without conservation measures (eligibility only for the crop insurance federal premium subsidy and it only applies to highly erodible land.)
  • Gillibrand (SA 2156) - This amendment restores the $4.49 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). (Cuts made in the Committee Bill that is going to the Senate floor) The SNAP funding would be paid for by a cut to the amount the federal government pays to insurance companies to provide crop insurance to farmers. Gillibrand’s amendment will also provide an additional $500 million over 10 years to the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). This program provides fresh produce snacks to schoolchildren. The bill also grants authority to USDA to make bonus purchases for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has submitted an amendment that would eliminate the fresh-only requirement in the FFVP by expanding this program to include frozen, dried, or canned fruits and vegetables.
  • Sanders-Leahy (SA 2386)- Enables schools to purchase from local and regional producers.
  • Udall (NM) (SA 2417)– Disadvantaged Producer Training – This amendment would restore funding for the Outreach and Assistance Program for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Rancher (also known as the 2501 Program).
  • Harkin (SA 2239) – Beginning Producer Training – This amendment would increase funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program.
  • Harkin-Casey (SA 2245) – Microloans to Beginning and Veteran Producers – This amendment would allow FSA to make smaller "microloans" of up to $35,000, tailored to meet the needs of small, young, beginning, and veteran farmers and ranchers, streamline the application process, and provide discretionary authority to FSA to establish intermediary lender pilot projects. This amendment would also give FSA discretionary authority to establish a new pilot program to support micro-credit programs administered by non-governmental or community-based organizations.

Please call your senators or sign on to the letter by tomorrow to give these amendments a chance in the Senate!

Thursday, May 31, 2012

What's on my Food? A Pesticide Resource

Pesticide residues are on your food, even after washing. What are the dangers of these pesticides? How much of this stuff is really on the food we eat?

The Pesticide Action Network has developed a valuable resource that can tell you what pesticides, and how much of them, are on the foods you buy in the grocery store and from conventional farms. What’s On My Food? is a searchable database designed to make the public problem of pesticide exposure visible and more understandable.  The database allows you to search by pesticide or by product, and lists how often a particular pesticide is found, in what ways it is toxic, and what other produce has been exposed to it.  You can search the database online or download the free iPhone app and take it with you when you go shopping.  With every dollar you spend, you make a choice about whether or not to support the poisoning of yourself and the planet.  Arm yourself with this tool in order to make more informed decisions about what is going into your body and take a stand against harmful agrochemicals.

Pesticide exposure is a huge problem in the United States.  Chemicals sprayed on produce remain after washing and turn up in the human body and in the environment thousands of miles from where they were originally applied to crops.  They disrupt our bodies and the bodies of other lifeforms.  In the United States, pesticide regulation lags behind the rest of the industrialized world. The Pesticide Action Network explains:
Since the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) regulates most chemicals on a chemical-by-chemical basis, the combined and cumulative effects of a mixture of pesticides are nearly impossible for them to address – and so they usually don’t.  Pesticides and industrial chemicals in the U.S. are innocent until proven guilty. It often takes decades to prove a chemical guilty. Meanwhile, we are exposed to dozens of pesticides in the food we eat, water we drink and air we breathe.
As always, a great way to limit your pesticide exposure is to buy organic and local.  Organic foods are prohibited from being sprayed with synthetic pesticides.  Talk to your local farmer.  Even if they aren't USDA Certified Organic, they might not be spraying their crops with harmful chemicals.  Building a relationship with a nearby farmer is the best way to ensure that you limit your pesticide exposure while supporting your local economy. 

Not sure how to take that first step toward buying local and organic?  Check out our website for a listing of Connecticut farmers markets where our member farms sell their produce, or download a PDF of our Farm and Food Guide to see a listing of all our member farms by county.  Visiting a farm or farmers market transforms the chore of grocery shopping into a fun and healthy experience for your whole family.  What better way to help us secure a brighter future for ourselves and the planet!

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Borrowing Against the Future for the Present

Yield isn't the issue.  The issue is sustainability.
As an addendum to yesterday's blog post about the organic -vs- conventional debate, let's talk a little about our societal perspective on how to go about feeding ourselves.  Although we might not want to think about it, it's no secret that in the United States we often lack a forward thinking mentality, and that focus on the present has negatively manifested itself a lot in the last few years - the Bush-era tax cuts, the social security crisis, the medical emphasis on expensive treatment rather than preventative care, the list goes on.  And because this is a systemic problem, you might guess that it also makes itself apparent in our food system.  Well, you're right.

As Kristiane mentioned yesterday, the debate about whether organic can outperform conventional or vice versa is really beside the point.  During a really good growing season, conventional agriculture might increase your yields for a year or two, while simultaneously:
  • degrading your soil and water
  • producing less nutrient dense (and therefore less nutritious) food
  • running the risk of failure should the affects of climate change rear it's head
  • pumping tons of fossil fuels into the air to accelerate the risk of failure from climate change
  • poisoning the wildlife (and people) of the surrounding ecosystems
You might get a few exceptionally good harvests, but at what cost? Is it really worth it in the long run, and when you look at it with that broader perspective, can you really consider it a success? Probably not.  In this way we have taken out a loan against the future of our food system in order to sustain an expensive, wasteful, unhealthy, and wholly unsustainable present-day food system.

And it's not just the environmental effects of conventional farming that show a consistent lack of forward thinking. An editorial response to yesterday's mentioned study about conventional -vs- organic yields begins,
A new a study from McGill University and the University of Minnesota published in the journal Nature compared organic and conventional yields from 66 studies and over 300 trials. Researchers found that on average, conventional systems out-yielded organic farms by 25%—mostly for grains, and depending on conditions.
Embracing the current conventional wisdom, the authors argue for a combination of conventional and organic farming to meet “the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts."
This statement assumes that it's reasonable to expect and tolerate an ever increasing demand for meat and high calorie foods, even though a diet high in meat and animal products is both less cost effective and less healthy than consuming mostly plants.  It takes more energy, both in fossil fuels and in feed, to produce enough meat to feed one person than it does to produce enough plants to feed that same person, and the person who ate the plant-based diet is much less likely to develop (and cause everyone to spend a lot more on healthcare to treat) lifestyle diseases like diabetes and heart disease. By continuing to emphasize a diet loaded with animal products, we are indulging in an unsustainable present at the expense of our economic and medical future.  This system is also exclusionary:
In reality, the bulk of industrially produced grain crops goes to biofuels and confined animal feedlots rather than food for the 1 billion hungry. The call to double food production by 2050 only applies if we continue to prioritize the growing population of livestock and automobiles over hungry people.
So we are also taking out a loan against the future of the many in order to provide an expensive and unhealthy lifestyle for the few, an action that ultimately will adversely affect us all, regardless of our socioeconomic status. Continuing with a conventional food system affords us the possibility of a few years of questionably higher yields at the expense of our climate, our farmland, our money, and our health.  That's a tradeoff that isn't in anyone's best interest, so lets try to eat more plants and buy food that was produced sustainably and closer to home in order to promote a better future for us all.

Have a healthy afternoon!
-Melissa

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Can you have fair, green, affordable, and healthy food all at once?

What do you think?  The folks at Slow Food USA are vehemently divided on the subject.  Last August, after electing a new president, Slow Food started the "$5 Challenge", a pledge to share a fresh, healthy meal for under $5 per person as an alternative to a fast food value meal.  This marks a change in direction for Slow Food, as they were originally an organization that believed consumers should be willing to pay more for their food.  Proponents of this new outlook believe that the old way of doing things preached too much to the choir, and was often elitist, classist, and exclusionary.  Critics, however, argue that competing financially with fast food companies and big agribusiness is nothing more than a race to the bottom - an unsustainable effort that sacrifices the livelihoods of small scale farmers and food producers.  Personally, I can see both sides of the debate.  Not everyone can afford to pay more for the organic items sold in stores, but it's also dangerous to apply fast food economics to slow food situations.

However, you don't necessarily have to pay a lot more for healthy organic food.  Offset packaging and transportation costs by buying goods from your local farmer's market or CSA program.  Visit a farm and pick your own.  Or start a garden, either in your yard if you have one, or in containers if you don't.  You'll be supporting the local food movement, helping the environment, being kind to your wallet, and doing your health a favor.  Check out our Winter Food Project webpage and CT Farms and Food webpage to learn more about farms, markets, and CSA programs in your area all year round.

Read a Chow article here to learn more about the Slow Food debate and let us know what you think either here or on Facebook!

Thursday, December 15, 2011

10 Things You Should Know About GMOs

A new article by Care2 provides a concise and well-written outline of topics you can use in the event of a Genetically Modified Organism debate, courtesy of Jeffrey Smith, the Keynote speaker at our upcoming Winter Conference.  Advocates for GMO use have a lot to say about why GMOs are great for humanity, but numerous studies argue otherwise.  Here are some of the highlights:

1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―they defy deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments’ superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn’t require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, later their vice president. He’s now the US Food Safety Czar.

8. GMOs harm the environment.
GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

And that's only half of the list!  To read the full list, go here.  If you want to hear Jeffrey Smith speak in person about the dangers of GMOs, register for our Winter Conference being held on March 3, 2012 in Manchester, CT.  To learn more and to register, click here.

Have a great afternoon!
-Melissa

Friday, December 9, 2011

As long as we're talking 99% vs. the 1% . . .

Did you know that only 1% of America's population lists their occupation as "farmer". That is 1% of our population that feeds 100% of our population. 
The Occupy movement, in its flexibility and broad appeal, has also become a central part of the sustainable food, food justice, and sustainable farming movements.  You probably get why the occupy movement complements the sustainable food movement, but lets go over a few important connections to make:
  • small farms, especially those growing "specialty crops (fruits and vegetables) receive far fewer subsidies than large farms that produce cotton, corn and soy
  • the wealthy 1% can afford the local, organic, high quality food everyone needs to be healthy
  • the most economically depressed areas of the United States are often food deserts
  • supporting farming supports job creation
  • supporting organic, local farming supports much more job creation than on larger farms where farm machinery is relied on more heavily than manual labor
  • local farms and local foods support local economies instead of buying produce from South America which send our money out of the country or to multi-national corporations like Dole and Chiquita.
  • right now food production and poisonous chemical production (by large multinational corporations like Dow, Monsanto and Dupont) go hand in hand. Food produced organically is completely independent of the chemical production industry (unless their crops are contaminated by Monsanto's GMO genes of course)
Given all these connections (and there are many many more) farmers have joined Occupy Wallstreet. On December 4th, food justice activists (both producers and consumers) traveled from all over the coutry to occupy in New York City.  The march began at La Plaza Cultural Community Farde and ended at Zuccotti Park/Liberty Plaza. 
The message was that much of rural America supports the Occupy movement.  The movement is not made up of lazy, spoiled notheasterners who would rather camp in parks in below freezing weather than get a job (come on).
Another occupy movement in New York City, protesters at Morning Glory Community Garden in the South Bronx were broken up by police and five were arrested.  The police broke up a festival in celebration of food on the sidewalk because the community garden supporters had no permit.  I should also add that the community garden (which used to be in illegal dumping site) was raided by the NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development - pulling plants out by the roots, deconstructing raised beds, and building a fence around the community space in November.
Remember even if you're not prepared to put on multiple winter coats and illegally camp in Zuccotti Park, you can occupy the food movement.  The only people who don't benefit from local food production are the large companies and corporations that have crafted our imbalanced global food system, and if they're not ready to change, then it's time to stop supporting them.

On that note, have a lovely weekend!
~ Kristiane