California can require Monsanto to label Roundup, its popular weed-killer, as a possible cancer threat, a judge tentatively ruled Friday.
If it carries out the proposal, California would be the first state to order such labeling for the weed-killer, which is used by farmers and home gardeners worldwide.
Monsanto had sued the nation’s leading agricultural state, saying California officials illegally based their decision for carrying the warnings on an international health organization based in France.
The chemical giant has insisted that its product poses no risk to people.
Monsanto attorney Trenton Norris argued in court Friday that the warning labels would have immediate financial consequences for the company.
He said many consumers would see the labels and stop buying Roundup.
‘It will absolutely be used in ways that will harm Monsanto,’ he said.
After the hearing, the firm said in a statement that it will challenge the tentative ruling.
Critics take issue with Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, which has no color or smell.
Monsanto introduced the chemical in 1974 as an effective way of killing weeds while leaving crops and plants intact.
It’s sold in more than 160 countries, and farmers in California use it on 250 types of crops.
The chemical is not restricted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which says it has ‘low toxicity’ and recommends people avoid entering a field for 12 hours after it has been applied.
But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a Lyon, France-based branch of the U.N. World Health Organization, classified the chemical as a ‘probable human carcinogen.’
Shortly afterward, the most populated U.S. state took its first step in 2015 to require the warning labels.
Monsanto insists that glyphosate is safe, and argues that basing warning labels on the determinations of an unelected group in France is illegal
St. Louis-based Monsanto contends that California is delegating its authority to an unelected foreign body with no accountability to U.S. or state officials in violation of the California Constitution.
Attorneys for California consider the International Agency for Research on Cancer the ‘gold standard’ for identifying carcinogens, and they rely on its findings along with several states, the federal government and other countries, court papers say.
Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan still must issue a formal decision, which she said would come soon.
California regulators are waiting for the formal ruling before moving forward with the warnings, said Sam Delson, a spokesman for the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Once a chemical is added to a list of probable carcinogens, the manufacturer has a year before it must attach the label, he said.
Some who believe that Roundup has afflicted them or their loved ones applauded the ruling.
Teri McCall holds a photo of her late husband Jack McCall while interviewed outside of a courtroom in Fresno, Calif., Friday, Jan. 27, 2017. California can require Monsanto to label its popular weed-killer Roundup as a possible cancer threat despite an insistence from the chemical giant that it poses no risk to people, a judge tentatively ruled Friday. (AP Photo/Scott Smith)
Widow Teri McCall believes a warning would have saved her husband, Jack, who toted a backpack of Roundup for more than 30 years to spray weeds on their 20-acre avocado and apple farm.
He died of cancer in late 2015.
‘I just don’t think my husband would have taken that risk if he had known,’ said Teri, one of dozens nationwide who are suing Monsanto, claiming the chemical gave them or a loved one cancer.
But farmer Paul Betancourt, who has been using Roundup for more than three decades on his almond and cotton crops, says he does not know anyone who has gotten sick from it.
‘You’ve got to treat it with a level of respect, like anything else,’ he said. ‘Gasoline will cause cancer if you bathe in the stuff.’
Written for the Associated Press and published at The Daily Mail ~ January 30, 2017.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml“