Fri 20 Apr, 2018 07:03 am
(CN) – A California state appeals court dealt Monsanto a legal defeat on Thursday, ruling the state was well within in its legal bounds when it decided to list a weed-killing chemical as a possible cancer-causing agent.
California’s Fifth Appellate District affirmed a ruling, saying California’s decision to list glyphosate as a possible carcinogen, based on determinations made by international health organizations, did not override the rights of U.S. citizens.
“Fundamentally, appellants’ argument is that a state’s delegation of its lawmaking authority is an inappropriate violation of the republican form of government when that delegation is to a foreign agency,” said a three-judge panel in a 43-page ruling issued on Thursday. “Yet there is no question, given the extensive analysis of the United States Constitution … that the state has authority to delegate legislative authority under long-settled principles consistent with republican forms of government.”
In other words, the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) acted appropriately when it listed glyphosate, a weed-killing chemical sold commercially as RoundUp, under the Proposition 65 list of chemicals believed to cause cancer.
“This is a huge win for all Californians – and a huge loss for Monsanto – as it upholds our right to protect ourselves and our environment from unnecessary and unwanted exposure to the dangerous chemical glyphosate,” said Adam Keats, senior attorney at California for Food Safety.
Last year, OEHHA listed the widely used weed abatement chemical as a possible carcinogen, citing the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization that focuses on researching the lifestyle and environmental risk factors that contribute to cancer rates.
Monsanto asserted that California’s reliance on a foreign entity not beholden to voters in the United States amounted to an end around U.S. sovereignty and sued in Fresno County Superior Court.
Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan ruled OEHHA acted legally by relying on international data on cancer when listing the chemical, a judgment affirmed by the panel on Thursday.
Proposition 65, approved by California voters in 1986 as concerns over public health issues such as safe drinking water came to light, requires OEHHA to list all chemical agents with a known association to cancer.
In 2015, a 17-person scientific panel appointed by the IARC, concluded that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen for humans, the first time any major health regulatory body acknowledged a link between the widely used herbicide and cancer.
Monsanto, a chemical manufacturer which is expected to merge with drug manufacturer Bayer after the Trump administration approved the corporate consolidation on Thursday, has maintained glyphosate and its commercial applications are safe for human use.
The court’s ruling has no bearing on the safety of the chemical, only the ability of state agencies such as OEHHA to use determinations made by foreign organizations as support in decision-making processes.
California Closer to Requiring Cancer Labels on Roundup
January 27, 2017
California Lists Roundup as a Carcinogen; Monsanto Bristles
June 27, 2017
Judge: Monsanto Not Required to Place Warning Labels on Products
February 26, 2018
Full link: https://www.courthousenews.com/ca-appeals-court-hands-monsanto-a-legal-setback/
Good news. Somewhere we have to start rolling back the practice of putting poison in our food. We have all these medical advances enabling us to live longer and healthier, then we let the food companies poison us all our lives with these pesticides and additives.
The fact this comes from California, our key agricultural state, is extremely encouraging.
This is an anti-science decision, and liberals should be a little hesitant to celebrate the legal precedent it sets.
States can deny the findings of science; whether it be global warming or the ecological impact of tracking.
This is a victory of politics over science. Ideological liberals will cheer, but when you push science aside for ideological gains, it always comes back to bite us.
Call something anti science if you disagree with it, thereby besmirching the opposition. In this case it will do you no good.
It is anti-science because the scientific evidence contradicts it. There is no credible scientific organization
that says the scientific evidence supports the politics behind this decision.
Science doesn't take ideological sides. The liberals love the science on global climate change, but hate the science on glyophosphates (or GMOs in general).
If you put science ahead of ideology, you will accept the science even when it doesn't conveniently fit your political world view.
That's a pretty big list (and it get's even bigger if you add the other boycotts such as Whole Foods and Nestle).
They should really publish a list of foods that outraged liberals can buy
. I think it would be a much shorter list.