OMAHA
(DTN) -- On Dec.
27, 2017, a temporary injunction was requested by the National Association of
Wheat Growers, along with the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, the
Agricultural Retailers Association, Associated Industries of Missouri, Iowa
Soybean Association, Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, CropLife
America, Missouri Farm Bureau, National Corn Growers Association, North Dakota
Grain Growers Association, South Dakota Agri-Business Association and United
States Durum Growers Association.
On
Tuesday, attorneys general in Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin, filed
an amicus brief in support of the injunction in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California.
In
addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the California Chamber of Commerce
filed amicus briefs in support of a preliminary injunction.
California's
Prop 65 requires products that may contain glyphosate to include warning labels
stating the chemical is known to cause cancer.
The
vast body of science done on the chemical, however, has found no direct link
between glyphosate and human cancers.
At the
end of December, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in its
draft risk assessment of glyphosate, that the herbicide is not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.
Though
glyphosate was developed by Monsanto, it is off-patent and sold by many
agriculture companies as one of the most widely used herbicides in the world.
It came to market in 1974 under Monsanto's Roundup label for control of
perennial and annual weeds in non-crop and industrial areas. Agricultural crops
genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate have greatly expanded the use of
the chemistry since 1996. Glyphosate is also used in forestry, urban, lawn, and
garden applications.
That
broad use has drawn world-wide attention to the herbicide and to its safety.
At the
end of November, the European Union approved a five-year extension of
glyphosate's use. Agriculture interests had wanted a 15-year extension.
In
2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health
Organization agency, concluded glyphosate was "probably
carcinogenic."
IARC
came under fire as a result of its broad declarations about what is
carcinogenic in summary reports the IARC calls "monographs." The
agency, for instance, drew scorn in 2015 for a monograph classifying processed
red meats such as bacon as carcinogenic.
The
IARC's glyphosate finding set off a series of reactions. The EPA released and
retracted a report refuting the IARC's conclusion in 2015.
Monsanto
has been sued dozens of times by people claiming various cancers linked to
glyphosate exposure. Nearly every one of those cases filed cite the IARC
findings.
STATES'
ARGUMENTS
In
their amicus brief, the 11 attorneys general argue California's "speech
mandate intrudes on the equal right of sovereign states to craft their own
public policy and inflicts significant damage on the people and economies of
other states."
The
states argue California's law intrudes on their duties to "protecting
economic freedom, stimulating growth, and maintaining laws that protect
consumers from misleading or false statements. California's mandate impedes
these duties.
"Amici
states have a substantial interest in this case, because California's speech
mandate for glyphosate products is fundamentally at odds with the
consumer-protection policies of other states. Most states have adopted legal
provisions that prohibit businesses from branding their products with false or
misleading statements. Yet California's regulation compels businesses to issue
false and misleading statements about their own products.
"Even
though no study has identified a definite link between glyphosate and cancer, the
regulation at issue here requires businesses that sell products containing
glyphosate to declare that glyphosate is 'known' to cause cancer.
"The
mandate therefore presents conscientious business owners with a no-win
proposition, and it interferes with the ability of other states to craft
rational and consistent consumer-protection policies."
The
attorneys general argue the California law creates an incentive for the state's
businesses to "abandon glyphosate products altogether." As for states
outside California, the attorneys general said businesses in those states
"cannot predict the final destination of a product at the time of
packaging" and often it is "not feasible to separate products
destined for sale in California from products to be sold in other states."
The
states argue California's law could lead to potential price shocks in food
markets. Herbicides have "substantially increased crop yield since their
introduction," the attorneys general said, "causing production costs
to plummet and savings to consumers to mount. As of 2004, corn yields had more
than tripled since the introduction of herbicides."
The
case is scheduled for a hearing on Friday.
Gordon
Stoner, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, said the action
by the attorneys general is important to farmers.
"We
are pleased that attorneys general from across the country are standing up for
agriculture and consumers by standing against this unconstitutional action by
California," he said in a statement.
"California's
flawed Prop 65 requirement will cause irreparable harm to the agriculture
economy impacting American farmers and consumers everywhere."