(NaturalNews) The labels on retail Roundup containers state in large letters, “Did You Know? Glyphosate targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals.”
The reality is quite different of course, and plaintiff attorney T. Matthew Phillips for the truth in advertising lawsuit against Monsanto has the science behind him. Roundup targets the enzyme EPSP synthase, and it is in animals and humans.
EPSP synthase is found in the microbiota (mostly friendly bacteria) that reside in our intestinal tracts (guts). Thus the enzyme is found in humans and animals. It is partly responsible for immunity activation and even helps our guts and our brains communicate with one another.
EPSP synthase is among other beneficial microbes that produce neurometabolites that are either neurotransmitters or modulators of neurotransmission. So the claim on Roundup containers is a total lie, and a dangerous one too.
It contributes to many of the food allergies, digestive illnesses and neurological diseases among Americans lately. Some scientists claim it contributes heavily to autism, in addition to Roundup’s carcinogenicity.
Not only does Roundup’s chemical violence permeate GMO crops; it is used by home gardeners and sprayed on non-GMO grain crops to desiccate them (dry them up) for earlier harvesting.
Prior similar suits involving Roundup
The simplicity of Phillips’ lawsuit is its beauty. Roundup has false safety claims prominently displayed on the containers’ labels. It’s false advertising at its worst. The science is in: EPSP enzymes are IN gut microbes, which all humans do have, or they’D be in really bad shape if not dead.
The adverse consequences don’t have to be proven in court with this legal challenge because only the false advertisement aspect needs to be proven. And as the government officials like to say about vaccines — “the science is in” that valuable, life-supporting human microbes contain EPSP enzymes.
In 1997, New York’s Attorney General (AG) ordered Monsanto to pull ads declaring Roundup “safer than table salt” and “will not wash or leach in the soil” and “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” and other claims. Monsanto pulled the ads and no fines were levied.
Ten years later, France got 15,000 euros (19,000 USD) from both Monsanto and its French distributor. Monsanto appealed twice, and both appeals were refused by 2009.
A financial slap on the wrist to be sure, but more public exposure on Roundup’s toxicity and Monsanto’s duplicity. Both of those successful legal actions were performed by governments.
Phillips’ lawsuit is the first Roundup truth in advertising lawsuit from a private attorney. And it’s happening within the time frame of the WHO’s worldwide declaration of glyphosate’s carcinogenic toxicity and other revelations of glyphosate’s human health issues.
Phillips anticipates that Monsanto’s attorney, Steven Smerek, will attempt to get the case thrown out at the initial August 10, 2015, hearing in California’s Federal Court on the flimsy pretense that Monsanto can’t be sued for false advertising because, if the EPA approves it, it must be true.
“The government does not have a monopoly on truth,” asserts Phillips, “It doesn’t get more Orwellian than this!” Phillips added, “The ONLY way they can win is by proving that a lawsuit demanding truth-in-advertising conflicts with (a) The Constitution; (b) Federal law; (c) A treaty. They’ll never make it!”
Consider that the 1997 New York AG’s successful lawsuit against Monsanto’s Roundup has set a USA legal precedence. This lawsuit is on a shoe string budget from an individual activist attorney and a small family. You can help out with the lawsuit’s funding page here.