Monsanto takes legal action to prevent 'flawed' listing of glyphosate under California's Prop 65

Monsanto Company is taking legal action to prevent a "flawed" listing of the herbicide glyphosate under California's Proposition 65 (Prop 65), which requires the state to maintain a "list of chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer".

The US EPA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have said the chemical does not cause cancer, Monsanto pointed out.  

The listing would violate the California and US Constitutions because the state would be ceding the basis of its regulatory authority to an unelected and non-transparent foreign body that is not under the oversight or control of any federal or state government entity, Monsanto added. 

Monsanto filed the suit against California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) today in California’s Fresno Superior Court.   

The company said: "These evaluations represent only one part of the body of information on which public health decisions may be based. … Therefore, no recommendation is given with regard to regulation or legislation, which are the responsibility of individual governments or other international organiaations."

Monsanto vice president of regulatory affairs Phil Miller said: "Glyphosate does not cause cancer, so listing glyphosate under California’s Prop 65 is not warranted scientifically and would cause unwarranted concern for consumers. Based on the overwhelming weight of evidence, regulatory agencies have concluded for more than 40 years that glyphosate can be used safely.  The conclusion from the IARC meeting in France was erroneous, non-transparent and based on selectively interpreted data.  We are bringing this challenge forward because this intention to list is contrary to science."

The US EPA chemical reveiew manager Carissa Cryan said in 2015: "Our review concluded that this body of research does not provide evidence to show that glyphosate causes cancer, and it does not warrant any change in EPA’s cancer classification for glyphosate." 

EFSA said last year: "Glyphosate did not present genotoxic potential and no evidence of carcinogenicity was observed in rats or mice." 

But IARC has concluded glyphosate is a cancer risk, which Monsanto disputes as they "conducted their assessment in a non-transparent process that is not accountable to the laws or governments of the United States or the State of California.  Unlike regulatory risk assessments, the IARC classification process followed non-standard procedures and selectively included and interpreted only a subset of the data actually available on glyphosate." 

Miller said: "The IARC classification of glyphosate is inconsistent with the findings of regulatory bodies in the United States and around the world, and it is not a sound basis for any regulatory action. Glyphosate is an efficient, effective and safe tool for weed control in fields, along roadways and in other environments.  We urge the state of California to uphold its own science-based conclusion about glyphosate reached in 2007 and the conclusions of the U.S. EPA and all other pesticide regulators."

 See http://www.monsanto.com/files/documents/monvoehha.pdf


Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Sign up now
Already registered?
Sign in

Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus

Read These Next

Business Planning - Staff are your greatest asset

Business Planning - Staff are your greatest asset

An effective strategy to retain staff is the best way for any business to avoid a potential recruitment crisis, Neville Stein advises.

Why are small garden centre groups expanding?

Why are small garden centre groups expanding?

After Coolings bought a third site in Kent this October, what is driving garden centres to add extra locations to their offer?

Is targetting younger buyers a distraction for garden centres?

Is targetting younger buyers a distraction for garden centres?

Garden centres may be better off looking towards their traditional demographic than chasing young customers.


Follow us on:
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Google +
Horticulture Jobs
More Horticulture Jobs

Horticulture Week Top 100 GARDEN CENTRES 2017

See our exclusive ranking of garden centre performance by annual turnover. 

Garden Centre Prices

Peter Seabrook

Inspiration and insight from travels around the horticultural world
 

Read more Peter Seabrook articles

Neville Stein

Business advice from Neville Stein, MD of business consultancy Ovation
 

Read latest articles