SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"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 the Center for Food Safety. (Photo: Mike Mozart/flickr/cc)
'Win for Science and Democracy' as Court Rules California Can List Glyphosate as Probable Carcinogen
"Monsanto doesn't get to tell California how to protect its people from dangerous chemicals or how to run the Prop 65 list."
Apr 20, 2018
In a development heralded as "a win for science and democracy" and for "all Californians," an appeals court on Thursday backed the state's listing of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, as a probable carcinogen.
"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 the Center for Food Safety (CFS).
Following the the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2015 listing of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that, in adherence with its Proposition 65, it planned on listing glyphosate as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer, citing the IARC research. That listing would require warning labels on packages.
Monsanto promptly sued the state over the move, and CFS intervened in the case to defend the listing and accused the agribusiness giant of "trying to keep the public in the dark about potential hazards from their products." Other labor rights and environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also intervened to support the listing.
Though Monsanto had argued that basing the designation on the IARC's conclusions was improper because the research body is a foreign entity, California's 5th District Court of Appeal rebuffed that argument.
The ruling says that "there is no question... that the state has authority to delegate legislative authority under long-settled principles consistent with republican forms of government." It goes on to say that the "appellants provide us with no reason or analysis why the United States' guarantee to states that they shall enjoy a republican form of government should provide appellants with an individual right to challenge a state's authority to enact its own laws."
Rebecca Riley, senior attorney with NRDC, also applauded the court's affirmation, calling it "a win for science and democracy."
"Monsanto doesn't get to tell California how to protect its people from dangerous chemicals or how to run the Prop 65 list," she said. "The ruling clearly backs the voters' choice to rely on expert scientific bodies to add dangerous chemicals to its list."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a development heralded as "a win for science and democracy" and for "all Californians," an appeals court on Thursday backed the state's listing of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, as a probable carcinogen.
"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 the Center for Food Safety (CFS).
Following the the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2015 listing of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that, in adherence with its Proposition 65, it planned on listing glyphosate as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer, citing the IARC research. That listing would require warning labels on packages.
Monsanto promptly sued the state over the move, and CFS intervened in the case to defend the listing and accused the agribusiness giant of "trying to keep the public in the dark about potential hazards from their products." Other labor rights and environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also intervened to support the listing.
Though Monsanto had argued that basing the designation on the IARC's conclusions was improper because the research body is a foreign entity, California's 5th District Court of Appeal rebuffed that argument.
The ruling says that "there is no question... that the state has authority to delegate legislative authority under long-settled principles consistent with republican forms of government." It goes on to say that the "appellants provide us with no reason or analysis why the United States' guarantee to states that they shall enjoy a republican form of government should provide appellants with an individual right to challenge a state's authority to enact its own laws."
Rebecca Riley, senior attorney with NRDC, also applauded the court's affirmation, calling it "a win for science and democracy."
"Monsanto doesn't get to tell California how to protect its people from dangerous chemicals or how to run the Prop 65 list," she said. "The ruling clearly backs the voters' choice to rely on expert scientific bodies to add dangerous chemicals to its list."
In a development heralded as "a win for science and democracy" and for "all Californians," an appeals court on Thursday backed the state's listing of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, as a probable carcinogen.
"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 the Center for Food Safety (CFS).
Following the the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2015 listing of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that, in adherence with its Proposition 65, it planned on listing glyphosate as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer, citing the IARC research. That listing would require warning labels on packages.
Monsanto promptly sued the state over the move, and CFS intervened in the case to defend the listing and accused the agribusiness giant of "trying to keep the public in the dark about potential hazards from their products." Other labor rights and environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also intervened to support the listing.
Though Monsanto had argued that basing the designation on the IARC's conclusions was improper because the research body is a foreign entity, California's 5th District Court of Appeal rebuffed that argument.
The ruling says that "there is no question... that the state has authority to delegate legislative authority under long-settled principles consistent with republican forms of government." It goes on to say that the "appellants provide us with no reason or analysis why the United States' guarantee to states that they shall enjoy a republican form of government should provide appellants with an individual right to challenge a state's authority to enact its own laws."
Rebecca Riley, senior attorney with NRDC, also applauded the court's affirmation, calling it "a win for science and democracy."
"Monsanto doesn't get to tell California how to protect its people from dangerous chemicals or how to run the Prop 65 list," she said. "The ruling clearly backs the voters' choice to rely on expert scientific bodies to add dangerous chemicals to its list."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.