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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.