Let's go back to talking about Roundup as Monsanto received a new complaint in recent days, this time presented to the federal court of Wisconsin for the misuse of advertising.
He is about to end up run over, his mother saves himLet's go back to Roundup as the Monsanto received in recent days a new complaint, filed this time in the federal court of Wisconsin for misuse of advertising.
The legal action is started from a consumer class-action who accuse the herbicide Roundup of being falsely advertised as safe since the effects on health (not only the environment but also humans) are now known.
The lawsuit, which cites official Roundup distributor Scotts Miracle-Gro Co as the defendant, claims consumers are misled by marketing campaigns that are based on inaccurate and misleading statements regarding glyphosate, the active ingredient of the well-known Monsanto herbicide. Plaintiffs are residents of not only Wisconsin but also Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey and Florida.
Monsanto glyphosate was introduced as a herbicide in these areas as early as 1974 and is widely used in food crops, promoted for years as a chemical principle capable of acting on an enzyme present in the plant kingdom that is not found in animals and people. The lawsuit aims to prove that this claim is actually false given that the active ingredient of Roundup would be capable of upset the intestinal bacteria of people and animals, compromising immune health, digestion and even brain function.
On glyphosate and the health risks of Roundup also read:
- Roundup Monsanto: 5 more reasons to ban glyphosate
- Roundup, Monsanto's pesticide may be causing the rise in gluten intolerances
- Glyphosate, where it is found and how toxic is the herbicide (#stopglyphosate)
- Glyphosate: Monsanto's RoundUp damages the liver, new study
- Carcinogenic glyphosate: EU declared it safe, but EPA executives were corrupt
Monsanto has not yet made any comments on the matter, perhaps because it is too busy defending itself from numerous complaints of those who accuse her of causing hundreds of cases of non-Hodgink's lymphoma and for this he dragged her to court.
However, the lawsuit filed in Wisconsin is very different in that it does not claim as much health damage as it does incorrect advertising of the product which violates trade laws.
