Glyphosate No Longer Part Of Proposition 65

You are here:

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the label warning requirement for glyphosate under California’s Proposition 65 is unfounded. Therefore, Bayer is not required to include a cancer warning on products containing the herbicide. This follows the judge’s preliminary ruling in 2018 and is permanent and final.

Judge William B. Shubb wrote “…the statement that glyphosate is ‘known to the state of California to cause cancer’ is misleading.” He went further to say, “Every regulator of which the court is aware with the sole exception of the IARC, has found that glyphosate does not cause cancer or that there is insufficient evidence to show that it does.”

Judge Shubb further noted that the First Amendment prohibits California from requiring a warning label for products containing glyphosate.

California required a cancer warning to appear on all products containing glyphosate by July 2018. This label could have potentially applied to certain food products, and some commodity processors, such as flourmills, had begun asking farmers to test wheat for the presence of glyphosate.

In 2019, EPA issued a statement to registrants that labels naming glyphosate as a known carcinogen will not be approved. The action is directly aimed at neutralizing California’s inclusion of glyphosate under Proposition 65, which lists substances ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ as classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

EPA conducted an independent evaluation of IARC’s claim that is considered to be more extensive and includes a more relevant data set (than IARC’s evaluation). EPA concluded glyphosate to be ‘not likely carcinogenic to humans,’ a stance consistent with other international regulatory agencies.

Was this article helpful?
0 out Of 5 Stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%
How can we improve this article?

Recent Articles