Quaker Oats sued for use of glyphosate in ‘100% natural’ products

Well known brand Quaker Oats has been sued because some tests show the controversial herbicide Glyphosate (aka Monsanto Roundup) has been found in trace amounts in some of their products.

Problem is, Quaker is advertising these products as "100% natural" !!

Although the levels are small and meet the EPA "standards" for "safety", it could be false advertising and certainly may be mis-leading.

Quaker allegedly uses Glyphosate as a drying agent also.

Roundup weed killer was deemed a “probable” human carcinogen by the World Health Organization last year.

The EPA has established levels fit for Human consumption.


Quaker Oats sued for use of glyphosate in ‘100% natural’ products

Quaker Oats is facing a new lawsuit following private tests that found trace amounts of the herbicide glyphosate on the company’s products. Thus, plaintiffs argue, the company employs false marketing tactics in claiming its products are “100% natural.”

A lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed in Federal District Courts in New York and California claiming that statements made by Quakers Oats about its products are misleading.

“Defendant aggressively advertises and promotes its oatmeal products as ‘100% Natural,’ and claims its oats are grown using ‘eco-friendly’ methods that pose ‘less risk of pollutants and groundwater pollution,'” the lawsuit says. “These claims are false, deceptive, and misleading.”

a reply to: xuenchen

Probably a carcinogen?

Seriously, these 'major brands' are garbage. I cringe at some of the products I used to eat because I assumed they would never put anything in them to hurt us. I was the most naive of any of us in my youth. Anyone that thinks these corporations give a crap about our health is lying to themselves.

a reply to: xuenchen

SERVES EM RIGHT! GRRRR.

I felt a real betrayal when I discovered how much the company was 'in' with the . . . oligarchy et al.

I'm not surprised at this news. I hope the suit wins big bucks for consumers.

a reply to: Metallicus

Couldn't agree more with you there. I wonder though if the trace amounts found in Quaker oats are from nearby farms.

If so then Monsanto might launch another lawsuit against Quaker. Those guys are ruthless and must be stopped. At least some countries overseas have said no to Monsanto.

a reply to: xuenchen

Probable carcinogen to those that work with it every day.

Get the facts right.

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: Joecanada11

If so then Monsanto might launch another lawsuit against Quaker.

What are you talking about?

a reply to: Chadwickus

Yes of course.

That makes it perfectly safe.

My mistake.

But I'll avoid the damn stuff just to be on the "safe" side thank you.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Metallicus

Couldn't agree more with you there. I wonder though if the trace amounts found in Quaker oats are from nearby farms.

If so then Monsanto might launch another lawsuit against Quaker. Those guys are ruthless and must be stopped. At least some countries overseas have said no to Monsanto.

I am happy to agree with you on this one.

Monsanto is the poster child for 'evil corporations'.

a reply to: Metallicus

See even with all the differences there is a common enemy

Had them a few times in my day and I guess I can add that to the list of damaged goods we have going on here in USA.

a reply to: Phage

I'm talking about Monsanto's ridiculous lawsuits against small to medium farmers such as these

The Schmeisers stood up to Monsanto’s claims of patent infringement in the Federal Court with just one judge and no jury. The pre-trial took two years to go to court in which Monsanto claimed that despite having no knowledge of Percy Schmeiser ever having obtained any GM seed, he must have used their seed on his 1 030 acres of land because ninety-eight percent of the land was GM contaminated. And, because the Schmeisers had contaminated their own seed supply with Monsanto seed, ownership of the Schmeisers seed supply reverted to Monsanto under patent law.

Monsanto owns all crops or seeds contaminated, the court ruled

The Court ruled after a two-and-half-week trial that it was the first patent infringement case on a higher life form in the world. The Judge’s ruling and Percy Schmeiser’s name became famous overnight:

·It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener’s seed or plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination, pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under patent law, they becomes Monsanto’s property.

Source

thegranddisillusion.wordpress.com...

If Monsanto can find a way to file a half cocked lawsuit they will do it and their lawyers are too much for even large companies like Quaker.

a reply to: xuenchen

I could type that with this news We all celebrate with some Ca. wines but even the wines have this crap in it... Why seed the clouds in alleged "Chem Trails" when 'They' can $ell Us food with this crap in it?? The 'Chem Trails' wouldn't cover enough Peons/Serf and it would be visible, so what to do? $ell some weedkiller and make $$$ there and ALSO kill even more folks than some cloud seeding? Plus, w/the alleged 'Chem Trails' 'They' would have to breathe the same air? This way 'They' can get their food and KNOW it isn't laden w/a carcinogen or 6...

ecowatch.com...

thefreethoughtproject.com...

namaste

a reply to: xuenchen

Once the USDA bought the organic labeling, all integrity went out the window.

All natural doesn't mean a thing. That is pretty well understood. It is just an advertising pitch, there is nothing governing all natural. If you want to get it glyphosphate free, buy organic and hope the next field over isn't getting glyphosphate sprayed on it on a windy day.

I doubt if the lawsuit will go anywhere, it will get thrown out of court. Let the buyer beware.

a reply to: Joecanada11
Yeah. I figured you were talking about that. That meme has been around for a while. Licensing lawsuits are frivolous? Percy Schmeiser knowingly violated licensing laws. He knew he was planting Roundup Ready seeds. He tested them first. He repeatedly planted them because he liked their performance.

Cross pollination was never an issue. Probably because it had no bearing on the case.

[125] That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop. I have found that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiffs' patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant.

[126] Other farmers who found volunteer Roundup tolerant plants in their fields, two of whom testified at trial, called Monsanto and the undesired plants were thereafter removed by Monsanto at its expense.

It's really interesting. You should read it.
decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca...

No farmer has been sued, successfully or otherwise, for anything having to do with cross pollination or contamination.

So, next I will be called a shill. Not because I have defended Monsanto (I haven't), but because I present actual facts.

originally posted by: rickymouse
All natural doesn't mean a thing. That is pretty well understood. It is just an advertising pitch, there is nothing governing all natural. If you want to get it glyphosphate free, buy organic and hope the next field over isn't getting glyphosphate sprayed on it on a windy day.

I doubt if the lawsuit will go anywhere, it will get thrown out of court. Let the buyer beware.

Even if it's glyphosphate free, organic crops use chemicals a plenty too. Heavier than most newer types of agriculture.
Fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides. Chemicals a plenty. Always have been.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Joecanada11
Yeah. I figured you were talking about that. That meme has been around for a while. Licensing lawsuits are frivolous? Percy Schmeiser knowingly violated licensing laws. He knew he was planting Roundup Ready seeds. He tested them first. He repeatedly planted them because he liked their performance.

Cross pollination was never an issue. It was not mentioned in the trial, either by either party.

[125] That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop. I have found that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiffs' patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant.

[126] Other farmers who found volunteer Roundup tolerant plants in their fields, two of whom testified at trial, called Monsanto and the undesired plants were thereafter removed by Monsanto at its expense.

It's really interesting. You should read it.
decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca...

No farmer has been sued successfully, or otherwise for anything have to do with cross pollination or contamination.

So, next I will be called a shill. Not because I have defended Monsanto, but because I present actual facts.

It is a Catch 22.
You can't not like Monsanto's business practices and point out errors in information. It's a tried and true strategy, I found out. Read up on it for other movements.

a reply to: Phage

Thanks for the link. I would rather have accurate information. Funny thing is I live just 2 hours from that farm in question. We grow a lot of wheat in Saskatchewan.

Also after that I did a little more research and apparently Monsanto is one of the most transparent companies regarding their lobbying efforts.

Well phage now I gotta call you a shill. Just kidding I appreciate it. I would rather have the facts.

originally posted by: RuneSpider

originally posted by: rickymouse
All natural doesn't mean a thing. That is pretty well understood. It is just an advertising pitch, there is nothing governing all natural. If you want to get it glyphosphate free, buy organic and hope the next field over isn't getting glyphosphate sprayed on it on a windy day.

I doubt if the lawsuit will go anywhere, it will get thrown out of court. Let the buyer beware.

Even if it's glyphosphate free, organic crops use chemicals a plenty too. Heavier than most newer types of agriculture.
Fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides. Chemicals a plenty. Always have been.

You are correct on that. The organic chemicals can be bad for us too. Some organic chemistry is actually more toxic. Most of our organic farmers locally do not use any of that, but the bigger ones downstate do. I know there is no pesticides on the wild blueberries I pick, but that may change. They are starting to spray tree killer on side the roads instead of brushing in places. I don't pick the power line either, they spray that with something similar to agent orange. Just a few molecules away.

It's sad when you have to worry about wild food. A bear peeing on a plant is of no concern, in fact the berries are plentiful when they do. Maybe everyone will start fearing mosquitoes and there will be more available wild blueberries.

a reply to: xuenchen

Unless you grow your own food you really don't know what you are eating.