Monsanto Won The House

(Video Retrieved From RT)

Monsanto Won The House

July 24th, 2015 H.R. 1599 passed in the House of Representatives with a 275 -150 vote (LOC, 2015). We the people sit back and watch as corporations like Monsanto, an agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, and crooked, corrupt polititians sell off our futures for a dollar. The “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015”, H.R. 1599, is heading for the Senate and soon President Barack Obama’s desk to be signed.

Read the Entire bill here on the Library of Congress website: Where you can follow H.R. 1599 or any other bill as it moves through the U.S. government.

Sign The Petition To Stop This Bill. Send a Message to Your Congress in a few clicks. If you really want to make an impact cite the information at the bottom of this article. “Failure to Yield” by Doug Gurian-Sherman

2 Words – Monsanto Bribery (Let me Google that for you) – Bribery

What does this mean?

This means “The United States” has taken steps to increase food production, and decrease purchases of organic and natural foods. This is made possible by H.R. 1599, if passed, by eliminating the need to inform consumers of genetically modified foods. This will undoubtedly result in consumer confusion and ignorance, as well as many local farmer’s joblessness. States like Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont have laws in place that require labeling and push out GMO pushing companies like Monsanto (Schwab, 2014). With this type of win for globalist corruption, farmers in States like the former mentioned will be overrun by Monsanto.

On the other hand, GMO’s have decreased the need for insecticide in the growth of many foods. GMO products are everywhere today and have successfully progressed the tillage practices of many farmers around the country. For example, the need for insecticide applications in U.S. potato growth has fallen from “2.78 to 1.58/ha and the amount of insecticide
used was reduced from 2.17 to 1.74 kg/ha” (Phipps & Park, 2002). The data is given in amount of applications per hectare (2.47 acres) and amount of insecticide per hectare, in kilograms. This means the soil quality is better and the future generations of America will not necessarily be dealing with the problem Punja, India is dealing with. As documented in Contemporary Environmental Issues (2 ed.), India has traded the purification of their water for the fast growing crops produced by insecticides introduced in the 1960’s (Turk & Bensel, 2014).

Read: 25,000 Indian Farmers Recently Threatened To Commit Suicide

Are genetically modified foods the answer?

They could be. In the distant future, genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) or genetically modified crops (GMC’s) could increase production and simultaneously restore soil/ environmental destruction from the past. The problem is companies like Monsanto, have tipped the scale to benefit the board of executives and the politicians and academics involved in the process.

That is a big statement.

A study done by Johan Dielsa, Mario Cunhab, Célia Manaiaa, Bernardo Sabugosa-Madeirac, and Margarida Silvaa (2011), more recently than the early studies on GMO’s listed formerly in this discussion, show clear bias and collusion involved in a large percentage of studies used to pass many genetically modified products through the FDA and Congress. Specifically, 94 such articles were studied, and 52% did not declare where the funding came from, at least one of the authors had close relations with the industry in 44% of the articles, and 8% of the studies were funded by the industry.

If we can’t depend on our leaders then who can solve this issue?

Everyone essentially has a stake in the future of mankind. If all people are not engaged in the production and management of resources then there will be a bias of some sort, inevitably. The corruption seen in this industry is not anew to society today or other facets of life. The underlined and common link between all of these issues are the peoples lack of knowledge and/ or willingness to engage his or herself in the responsibility at hand.

There has been push back. Many restrictions on land use and generally the overall limitation of resources available to individuals in general do not permit them to produce and manage their own food. This is another conversation to be had but yet a very interesting subject and major part of the dynamic discussed here. Transfers of land ownership through sales, government seizures, property tax, effects of minimum wage on free market, obscured views of traditionalism and globalization and similar driving forces have reconstructed the daily routine of man and woman in today’s society.

239 years ago plots of land were given to families to farm and live. Today food-stamps or similar subsidies are given to people, paid for by neighbors, friends and family members with higher paying jobs.

Is genetically modified food safe?

Genetically modified foods have not been consumed for the generations needed to know. There simply is not enough data. The topic comes down to how the food is modified and with what types of changes are to be made and how those changes affect people (of all types) over time (with mixed diets) and so on.

The Chinese do not think so. With the largest population on the planet, one would think if GMO’s were the answer then China would be embracing them. On the contrary, recently U.S. importers were barred for more than a year, from importing corn to China, due to the unapproved genetically modified corn found in just one shipment (Roberts & Bjerga, 2015).

However, Cornell University recently funded a study that found labeling GMO products will produce “costs that will largely be passed on to consumers” (Lesser & Lynch, n.d.). This was published sometime in spring 2014 according to Tim Schwab (Schwab, 2014). The costs of such requirements must be taken into consideration when passing any laws mandating the production of labels, of course. These types of studies and other motivations motivate the politicians of N.Y. not to pass requirements of GMO labeling onto companies like Monsanto, in fear prices in supermarkets will rise.

Read The Top of Page 6 of Cornell’s Study “Red Lettering”

The Solution

Organic foods have been taking off in the food industry. GMO products or any regularly farmed product for that matter, are in heavy competition with the organic farmers. Lighter laws on GMO producing companies provide a competitive advantage for the GMO industry vs. organic industry, thus allowing Monsanto to “Win the House”…

The U.S. government has created an agency known as the “Extension Program”, geared towards providing healthy food for Americans in the future and today. One of the largest success’s of the Extension Program to date, is the eOrganic program that has helped farmers transition into organic farming. The eOrganic program publishes it’s studies through Oregon State University.

The link below is to the largest study on organic production vs. GMO to date and is also found in the Oregon State University database. This study was completed years ago through the collaboration of thousands of farmers and thousands of researchers. It was not published until April 14, 2009. The study is called “Failure to Yield”. The study found that genetically modified foods are “largely failing” (Gurian-Sherman, 2009). The study also found that organic methods are far superior than genetic engineering with heavy emphasis on wasted resources.

Failure To Yield
Doug Gurian-Sherman PhD Senior Scientist and Director of Sustainable Agriculture at the anti-GMO litigation Washington-based NGO Center for Food Safety


Remember if you are not engaged, our future, my future and yours will suffer.
Click the link above and learn about this subject.

The Academic Oligarchy

Monsanto Won The House

Who are they in bed with?

Final Thoughts.

Although this article is only a brief analysis, on the contrary “Failure to Yield” is perhaps the best compilation of evidence on the subject (Gurian-Sherman, 2009). My environmental studies textbook does not mention the study. Although it does mention other resources as far back as Pinchot in 1910. Who is Turk & Bensel, or Bridgepoint, or Ashford in bed with?…
Let’s talk about it.


Diels, J., Cunha, M., Manaia, C., Sabugosa-Madeira, B., & Silva, M. (2011). Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Policy, 36(2), 197-203. doi:

Gurian-Sherman, D. (2009) Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Retrieved from

LOC (2015) H.r. 1599 safe and accurate food labeling act of 2015. Retrieved from

Lesser, W. & Lynch, S. (n.d.) Costs of labeling genetically modified food in ny state. Retrieved from

Roberts, D. & Bjerga, A. (2015, May 21) China does an about-face on gmo’s. Retrieved from

RT (2015, July 21) Gmo companies won’t need to label their foods under new house bill [Video File] Retrieved from

Schwab, T., (2014, Sept. 23) How your tax dollars are helping distort the gmo labeling debate. Retrieved from

Turk, J., & Bensel, T. (2014). Contemporary environmental issues (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.



Always remember to SHARE important information! We can change the world.

Find More News

Leave a Comment Below


Christopher Kemmett

Founder of The Real Strategy and Lowest Priced Advertisements.