|
Glyphosate News
California’s Proposition 65
On November 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California could not enforce a rule that would require Proposition 65 cancer warning labels on glyphosate. The decision upheld a previous ruling from a lower court which concluded that requiring a cancer warning label for glyphosate was a violation of the First Amendment.
At issue was California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) requirement that glyphosate products carry a Proposition 65 warning on its label stating that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen. OEHHA’s decision was based on a 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report which identified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic" to humans. However, that view is not shared by regulatory agencies worldwide nor by a majority of scientists. OEHHA disagreed, which is why they mandated Proposition 65 labeling to inform consumers of the potential cancer risk.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the label warning was “compelled commercial speech” that would have required Monsanto – the primary registrant – to “convey a controversial, fiercely contested message” that the company disagreed with. In addition, the court ruled the government may only compel commercial speech that is "purely factual and uncontroversial."
Glyphosate Lawsuits
In recent weeks, three jury verdicts have been decided, which awards substantial amounts to plaintiffs who claimed that exposure to glyphosate caused their cancer. In the first case, a Philadelphia plaintiff was awarded $175 million. In Missouri, another plaintiff was awarded $1.25 million. Finally, a California plaintiff was awarded $332 million, the bulk as punitive damages. Bayer has stated its intention to appeal each verdict.
|