California Glyphosate Warning

California Glyphosate Warning

Understanding Why OEHHA Added Warnings about Glyphosate Cancer Risks

On July 7, 2017, California became the first state in the nation to list Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, to the state’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. OEHHA’s decision was pursuant to the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, better known as California Proposition 65, a ballot initiative approved by voters in 1986 to address toxic chemical exposure concerns. Prop 65 requires the State of California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

OEHHA implements Prop 65’s toxic chemical list requirements through a series of related regulations. These include the following:

  • Health & Safety Code Section 25249.8(a) states: The Prop 65 “list shall include … those substances identified in Labor Section 6382(b)(1)…”
  • Labor Section 6382(b)(1) identifies: “[s]ubstances listed as human or animal carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)…”
  • California Code of Regulations Section 25904(b) states: “[a] chemical or substance shall be included on the [Prop 65] list of it is classified by [IARC] … as: … (2) Probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).”

Thus, in March 2015, when IARC classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen,” the foregoing legislation permitted OEHHA’s adopting IARC’s findings as a basis for adding glyphosate to the Prop 65 list.

Once listed as carcinogen by IARC, warnings were required to prevent unwitting exposure to glyphosate. To wit, Health & Safety Code Section 25249.6 states: “No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer of reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning…”

Need to speak with an experienced Roundup attorney about your cancer claim? Contact Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, at (855) 948-5098 today or submit our online form.

California Glyphosate Prop 65 Warning Timeline

A protracted process starting with the 2015 IARC report led to the final decision to list a California glyphosate warning in accordance with Prop 65. The following timeline shows how California EPA arrived at its decision:

  • March 20, 2015: IARC issued its report on glyphosate, concluding that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans. The IARC report was based, in part, on studies of exposures to glyphosate in several countries around the world, and it traced the health implications from exposure to glyphosate since 2001.

According to the report, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and other hematopoietic cancers are the cancers most associated with glyphosate exposure. The report further concluded that glyphosate exposure caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, as well as genotoxic, hormonal and enzymatic effects in mammals.

  • Jan. 21, 2016: Monsanto filed a lawsuit against OEHHA over the agency’s intent to add glyphosate to Prop 65 list. Monsanto challenged the statutory basis underlying OEHHA’s intent to list glyphosate, arguing that the decision ceded authority to an “unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable foreign body.”
  • Jan. 27, 2017: Fresno Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan issued a tentative ruling against Monsanto, that once deemed final, would allow California’s EPA to list glyphosate as a cancer causing chemical.
  • March 10, 2017: Judge Kapetan formalized her ruling, which allowed Calif. EPA-OEHHA to proceed with its intent to list glyphosate as a carcinogen in accordance with Prop 65 and to move toward a possible California glyphosate warning on Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides.

In her ruling, Judge Kapetan wrote:

“…the Labor Code listing mechanism does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an outside agency, since the voters and the legislature have established the basic legislative scheme and made the fundamental policy decision with regard to listing possible carcinogens under Proposition 65…”

  • March 22, 2017: Monsanto appealed and requested a stay of the Superior Court ruling.

OEHHA also proposed a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for glyphosate of 1100 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, determining that exposures below that level would be given “Safe Harbor” and would be exempt from the warning requirement.

  • May 10, 2017: Due to a substantial number of requests and interest in the issue, OEHHA scheduled a hearing for June 7, 2017.
  • June 7, 2017: The public, scientists, and attorneys shared their concerns with the proposed NSRL for glyphosate at a public hearing in Sacramento. A majority advocated for a lower NSRL. Monsanto, on the other hand, argued for an “infinite” NSRL, citing California legal precedent which had actually recognized the pertinence and authority of IARC classifications. OEHHA extended the public comment period to June 21, 2017.

Baum Hedlund submitted a public comment highlighting the various issues with the NSRL and urged OEHHA to consider epidemiological literature, additional animal bioassays and the carcinogenicity of the Roundup formulation actually used by consumers.

Some advocates wanted to see a California glyphosate warning on all bottles of Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides if not an outright ban.

  • June 15, 2017: Court of Appeal denied Monsanto’s request for a stay of listing following the Superior Court ruling in Monsanto v. OEHHA.
  • June 20, 2017: Monsanto filed an administrative petition with OEHHA, pursuant to Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations Section 25904(e), requesting the agency to “refrain from adding Glyphosate to [Prop 65].”

Monsanto argued that an unpublished study (which showed no evidence of link between glyphosate and cancer) had not been disclosed to IARC and would have lowered the classification if IARC had considered the study results in its final evaluation.

The study suffered from fundamental problems which rendered it far from determinative on the issue of causation. IARC only considers published, peer-reviewed literature and the study was not published (most likely due to its flaws).

  • June 22, 2017: California Supreme Court denied Monsanto’s request for review and stay of listing the California glyphosate warning.
  • June 26, 2017: OEHHA announced that effective July 7, 2017 glyphosate will be listed in accordance with Proposition 65 as known to the state of California to cause cancer via the Labor Code mechanism.
  • July 7, 2017: OEHHA officially added glyphosate to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer. OEHHA has yet to decide if it will require a warning on Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides. Per the Huffington Post, an OEHHA spokesman said it is possible that OEHHA could change the NSRL for glyphosate as the agency reviews the input it has received from outside parties. More than 10,600 comments were submitted to OEHHA during the public comment period regarding the glyphosate NSRL issue.
  • Nov 15, 2017: Monsanto, CropLife America and several other U.S. farm organizations filed a lawsuit against OEHHA to stop the state of California from requiring cancer warnings on products containing glyphosate. The plaintiffs in the case include: National Association of Wheat Growers; National Corn Growers Association; United States Durum Growers Association; Western Plant Health Association; Missouri Farm Bureau; Iowa Soybean Association; South Dakota Agribusiness Association; North Dakota Grain Growers Association; Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Monsanto Company; Associated Industries of Missouri; Agribusiness Association of Iowa; CropLife America; and Agricultural Retailers AssociationThe defendants in the case include: Lauren Zeise, in her official capacity as Director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; and Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California

Problems with the ‘No Significant Risk Level’ (NSRL) California Glyphosate Warning Exception

Proposition 65 prohibits a person in the course of doing business from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical that has been listed as known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual. However, reasonable warning is not applicable when exposures are “insignificant.”

Based upon a single mouse diet study, OEHHA proposed a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for glyphosate of 1,100 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, meaning that any level of glyphosate exposure below the NSRL would not require a warning. There are several scientific, legal and public health issues raised by the proposed NSRL, which provides a Safe Harbor exemption from Prop 65’s warning requirement.

OEHHA Calculated Glyphosate NSRL Using a Single Rodent Diet Exposure Study

One rodent diet exposure study is not enough to ensure safe exposure levels for glyphosate. OEHHA should have considered additional animal studies, accounting for variable exposure doses used in studies which observed tumor incidence and the growth of lymphomas at significantly lower doses than the single rodent diet exposure study OEHHA relied upon.

The following rodent studies found incidences of tumor development:

  • Wood et al. found Lymphoid hyperplasia at low and mid doses in male mice at 71.4 and 234.2 mg/kg-bw/day in a study where malignant lymphomas were significantly induced at 810 mg/kg-bw/day.*
  • Lankas in a 1981 study where Lymphocytic hyperplasia was observed at 11 mg/kg-bw/day in Sprague-Dawley rats.**
  • Lankas observed Testicular interstitial tumors in male Sprague-Dawley rats which demonstrated a significant trend and a significant pairwise comparison between control and the high dose of 31.49 mg/kgbw/ day.**
  • Stout and Ruecker observed Pancreatic islet cell adenoma in male Sprague-Dawley rats demonstrating a significant pairwise comparison relative to controls at the low dose, 89 mg/kg-bw/day in 1990.***

* EPA Glyphosate Issue Paper 2016 page 81

** EPA Glyphosate Issue Paper page 74

*** EPA Glyphosate Issue Paper page 75

In addition to the above studies, eight additional tumor sites were found in previously unavailable data in several key animal studies related to glyphosate carcinogenicity. This data, which was not available to IARC when the agency issued its glyphosate report, further bolsters the original carcinogenicity findings and highlights the need for a proper California glyphosate warning.

Glyphosate Interferes with Human Microbiota

Glyphosate kills weeds by interfering with the “shikimate pathway,” a metabolic sequence that synthesizes vital amino acids. Glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway by interfering with 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP), an enzyme that governs aromatic amino acid formation in higher plants, bacteria and fungi.

While Monsanto’s current Roundup® label says glyphosate targets “an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets,” EPSP is, in fact, present in many beneficial bacteria that inhabit human mucous membranes, skin and gut. The current Roundup label disregards the millions of bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms in or on human mucous membranes, skin and the gut that rely upon the shikimate pathway glyphosate disrupts. When glyphosate interferes with the microbiota cells that regulate numerous biological processes, serious health risks follow, including lymphomas.

Call (855) 948-5098 today to speak with our Roundup lawyers at Baum Hedlund. From our offices in Los Angeles, we serve clients nationwide.

  • Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Co. $2 Billion
  • Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto Co. $289.2 Million
  • Hardeman v. Monsanto Co. $80 Million
/
  • Best Law Firms 2020
    Best Law Firms 2020

    The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.

  • AV Top Ranked Law Firm
    AV Top Ranked Law Firm

    Less than one-half of one percent of firms across the nation have achieved this ranking. A firm must have a high percentage of lawyers who have achieved the prestigious AV® Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell®.

  • National Board of Trial Advocacy
    National Board of Trial Advocacy

    The National Board of Trial Advocacy is dedicated to bettering the quality of trial advocacy in our nation’s courtrooms and helping consumers find experienced and highly qualified trial lawyers.

  • Bar Register Preeminent Lawyers
    Bar Register Preeminent Lawyers

    The Bar Register is the definitive guide to the most distinguished law firms in America. It includes only those select law practices that have earned the highest rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory and have been designated by their colleagues as preeminent in their field.

  • Nation's Top 1%
    Nation's Top 1%

    The NADC is an organization dedicated to promoting the highest standards of legal excellence. Only the elite few attorneys are invited to join the NADC, less than 1% of practicing attorneys in the U.S.

  • Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
    Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States.  Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements.

  • Super Lawyers
    Super Lawyers

    Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

  • National Trial Lawyers Top 100
    National Trial Lawyers Top 100

    The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 recognized the law firms of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, the Miller Firm and Audet & Partners with the 2019 Trial Team of the Year award (in the Mass Torts category) for their work in the groundbreaking case of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto Company.

  • Elite Trial Lawyers
    Elite Trial Lawyers

    NLJ and American Lawyer Media honor law firms and attorneys as Elite Trial Lawyers for their cutting-edge legal work on behalf of plaintiffs in practice areas ranging from mass torts to securities litigation.

  • AV Rated
    AV Rated

    An AV® rating reflects an attorney who has reached the heights of professional excellence. The rating signifies the highest legal ability, and very high adherence to professional standards of conduct, ethics, reliability, and diligence.

  • Listed in Best Lawyers
    Listed in Best Lawyers

    Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. A listing in Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers.

/

Firm Reviews

What Our Clients Are Saying
  • Top Legal Minds in the Country

    “The Baum, Hedlund firm has some of the top legal minds in the country; they are driven, determined, trustworthy, ethical and passionate.”

    - From Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms
  • I Can’t Imagine a Better Law Firm

    “Multiple lawyers recommended Baum Hedlund to me and I have been consistently impressed with the quality of their work.”

    - Best Law Firms Survey
  • Diligent & Professional Representation

    “Thanks to your efforts I was able to recover from a tragic experience and turn my life around for the best.”

    - W.T.
  • Our Best Interest Was Always Number One on Your List

    “A special thank you to your Spanish-speaking staff for the extra effort put into this case. The language barrier was never a problem, and we are so very thankful to them. Your name holds much respect in our family.”

    - G.C. & C.C
  • We Have Never Met a More Wonderful Group of People

    “It is obvious that the people at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, & Goldman believe in what they do. And that you all really care about your clients.”

    - The B. Family
/