News

Greenpeace sues Tesco Lianhua for exceeding pesticide standards

2011-09-26 管理员 Read 166

According to a report from the Southern Metropolis Daily, two supermarkets, Tesco and Lianhua, were taken to court by an environmental protection organization because the fruits and vegetables sold were accused of containing a variety of nationally prohibited pesticides and excessive pesticide residues. The organization asked the two supermarkets to immediately stop selling problematic fruits and vegetables and apologize to the public. Tesco said that the organization's test report conclusions are not true. According to the legal network yesterday, the environmental protection organization is Greenpeace.


        According to the above report, Greenpeace sued Tesco (Beijing Company), one of the world's three largest retail companies, to the Second Intermediate Court of Beijing on the grounds of a "sale contract dispute". The day before yesterday, lawyers authorized by the organization also went to a Shanghai court to file a lawsuit against the famous Chinese retailer Lianhua Supermarket on the same grounds.


        It is reported that from April to July this year, the environmental protection organization conducted random sampling of bulk rice, fruits and vegetables from three supermarket chains in Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Wuhan, Chengdu and Hangzhou, including Lianhua, CP Lotus and Tesco. Send the samples to a third-party laboratory for pesticide residue testing. The survey results released by the organization earlier this month showed that the bulk rice sold by the three supermarket chains contained traces of pesticide residues, as well as many pesticide residues on fresh fruits and vegetables such as strawberries, water spinach, and leeks.


        The person in charge of the organization stated that, except for the formal meeting with CP Lotus and the positive attitude, neither Tesco nor Lianhua had any active actions or responses, so the organization decided to take legal channels. The court is currently reviewing the materials and has not yet responded to whether to file the case.