In another win for U.S. agriculture and the national agriculture coalition fighting California’s false and misleading Prop 65 labeling requirement for glyphosate, U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb, for the Eastern District of California, upheld the preliminary injunction prohibiting California from enforcing the requirement until a final ruling on the matter is issued by the court.
California Attorney General Xavier Beccera had filed a motion to lift a preliminary injunction issued by the court in February prohibiting the state from enforcing its labeling requirement. That motion was denied by Judge Shubb, who upheld the preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing its Prop 65 labeling requirement until all of the facts are considered by the court.
“California is attempting to implement a policy that would cause damage to American farmers,” said Chandler Goule, Chief Executive Officer for the National Association of Wheat Growers. “The facts and science are on our side which show that glyphosate is safe for use. Farmers and growers are defending U.S. agriculture against California’s false and misleading Prop 65 labeling requirement, and maintaining this preliminary injunction is another win for them.”
In the order, Judge Shubb ruled the state’s additional arguments “[do] not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of agencies that that have examined glyphosate have determined it is not a cancer risk.” He also reiterated that “the heavy weight of evidence in the record is that glyphosate is not known to cause cancer.”
Glyphosate is approved for application in over 250 agricultural crops throughout the United States. Despite scientific findings from hundreds of studies and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and regulatory agencies around the world that glyphosate is safe for use, California ignored facts, data, and science when it added glyphosate to the state’s Prop 65 list.