Also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, Prop 65 is a California law, enacted in 1986 and enforced by the California Attorney General’s Office and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
Prop 65 is intended to assist Californians in making informed consumer decisions about their health by providing a public list of chemicals known to cause cancer, reproductive harm, and birth defects.The list is updated annually, presently listing nearly 1,000 substances, including chemicals contained in a wide variety of commonly used household products, foods, drugs, dyes, solvents, and pesticides—such as Roundup.
On July 7, 2017, glyphosate—the active ingredient used in Roundup weed killer—was added to California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. It’s important to note that, so far, the data about glyphosate’s link to cancer in humans has been implicating—but not conclusive. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” to humans, prompting California to take action and add it to the list.
This listing—and the court battles surrounding it—have the power to shape deregulation and lawmaking at a national level, with far-reaching impact on a consumer’s ability to receive settlements from companies whose products have imperiled their health and livelihood. The biggest reason for non-California residents to watch the results of these cases is the “ripple effect” that the rulings will have on your ability to fight back against big companies who abuse consumer trust to market cancer-causing products in the name of profit.
The most immediate effect of glyphosate’s inclusion on the Prop 65 list is that the credibility of arguments about its risks are immediately bolstered by California’s OEHHA designating it as dangerous. Monsanto’s suit seeking to forbid OEHHA from making such a declaration is based on the reasoning that such a decision nullifies OEHHA’s independent administrative responsibilities under state and federal law. In plain talk, Monsanto claims that Prop 65’s list is a violation of the Constitution, citing issues of free speech, separation of powers and due process, among others.
It’s important to note that Monsanto doesn’t assert OEHHA’s proposed glyphosate listing violates Proposition 65—it challenges the validity and legality of Prop 65 itself. If the trial court and the state Court of Appeals hadn’t rejected this argument, the long-term consequences for consumers could be catastrophic when it comes to seeking compensation from corporations for harm caused by unsafe products.
The “long-game” that Monsanto is playing isn’t just about Roundup—it’s about the consumer’s ability to legally sue for damages caused by companies who market products they know cause harm to consumers. In short, if the courts decide that the procedural safeguards are deficient, it won’t just be Roundup avoiding posting consumer warnings.
