Court order blocking California glyphosate cancer label could spark more legal challenges to Prop. 65

og bc m
Credit: Wall Street Journal

On June 22, 2020, U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb (Eastern District of California) granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Monsanto Company and a number of farming groups and associations; denied a competing motion for summary judgment filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra; and entered a permanent injunction barring enforcement against Plaintiffs of the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) cancer warning requirements for glyphosate

After affirming its prior decision that the First Amendment challenge was ripe, the Court determined that the compelled Prop. 65 warning did not constitute “purely factual and uncontroversial information” …. and determined that the government failed to meet its burden of showing that Prop. 65’s warning requirement for glyphosate directly advances the asserted government interest, and that the compelled speech is not more extensive than necessary to achieve that interest.

Related article:  Video: Monsanto spars with Australia's Undercurrent over glyphosate, 'world food domination'


This ruling (if upheld or not appealed) potentially opens the door to challenge other Prop. 65 warning requirements where evidence of carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity is arguably inadequate or controversial.

Read the original post

Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
GLP Podcasts
Infographic: Here’s where GM crops are grown around the world today

Infographic: Here’s where GM crops are grown around the world today

Do you know where biotech crops are grown in the world? This updated ISAAA infographics show where biotech crops were ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
Send this to a friend