E-FILED
`9/30/2016
`FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
`By: C. Cogburn, Deputy
`
`KAMALA D. HARRIS
`Attorney General of California
`SUSAN S. FIERING
`Supervising Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 121621
`DENNIS A. RAGEN
`Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 106468
`LAURA J. ZUCKERMAN
`Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 161896
`HEATHER C. LESLIE
`Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 305095
`1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
`PO. Box 70550
`Oakland, CA 94612-0550
`Telephone: (510) 879-1299
`Fax: (510) 622-2270
`E-mail: Laura.Zuckerman@d0j.ca.gov
`Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents Office of
`Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Dr.
`Lauren Zeise, Acting Director
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
`
`Case No. 16CECG00183
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`OEHHA AND DR. ZEISE’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`ON MONSANTO’S FIRST AMENDED
`PETITION AND COMPLAINT AND
`CALIFORNIA CITRUS MUTUAL ET
`AL.’S COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
`December 9, 2016
`Date:
`10:00 am.
`Time:
`403
`Dept:
`Hon. Kristi Culver Kapetan
`Judge:
`None set.
`Trial Date:
`Action Filed: January 21, 2016
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY,
`Plaintiff and Petitioner,
`
`and
`CALIFORNIA CITRUS MUTUAL, ET AL.
`Plaintiff-Intervenors,
`
`OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
`HAZARD ASSESSMENT, ET AL.,
`Defendants and
`Respondents,
`
`and
`SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.; CENTER FOR FOOD
`SAFETY,
`
`Defendant-Intervenors,
`
`OEHHA’S Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of M01. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECG00183)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .......... 1
`
`1
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND .............................................................. 2
`PROPOSITION 65 ....................................................................................................... 2
`A Step One: OEHHA’s Obligation to List. ................................................... 3
`Step Two: Discharge and Warning Requirements. .................................... 4
`B.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 5
`THIRTY YEARS OF COURT REVIEW OF THE LABOR CODE LISTING
`MECHANISM ............................................................................................................. 5
`HISTORY OF THE CURRENT LITIGATION ................................................................... 6
`THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER .................................... 6
`The Monograph Process ................................................. 7
`A‘
`Reliance on IARC by Other Government Entities. ..................................... 9
`B.
`Reliance on IARC by Courts and Industry. ............................................. 11
`C.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 12
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13
`THE LABOR CODE LISTING MECHANISM IS NOT AN IMPERMISSIBLE
`DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
`CONSTITUTION. ...................................................................................................... 14
`Proposition 65 Does Not Delegate Fundamental Policy Decisions“.
`A4
`“ 16
`Proposition 65 Does Not Grant Rulemaking Authority ............................ 17
`B.
`Any Delegation of Authority is Accompanied by Adequate
`C.
`Safeguards and Direction. ....................................................................... 19
`IARC has robust internal safeguards in place. .............................. 19
`1.
`IARC has a built-in motivation to act responsibly ........................ 21
`2
`Proposition 65 imposes adequate standards for the listing. .......... 22
`3.
`The voters added safeguards to Proposition 65 to enable
`4
`companies like Monsanto to prove that chemicals listed by
`IARC do not pose a significant risk of cancer in humans ............. 22
`THE LABOR CODE LISTING MECHANISM DOES NOT VIOLATE PROCEDURAL
`DUE PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 24
`The Decision to List a Chemical is a Quasi-Legislative Action That
`A‘
`is Not Subject to Federal or State Constitutional Due Process
`Review ....................................................................................................... 25
`Even if Due Process Analysis Were Warranted, OEHHA’s Listing
`of Glyphosate Would Not Violate the Federal or State
`Constitutions’ Guarantees of Procedural Due Process .............................. 26
`
`I.
`
`I.
`
`1].
`
`III.
`
`I.
`
`I].
`
`B.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`~
`
`OEHHA’s Memo. ofPoints and Aulh. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`1‘
`
`2.
`
`2‘
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Monsanto has not been deprived of a constitutionally-
`protected interest under federal or state law. ................................ 26
`Monsanto has the right to raise its scientific arguments in
`court ............................................................................................... 28
`THE LABOR CODE LISTING MECHANISM OF PROPOSITION 65 DOES NOT
`VIOLATE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATE 0R FEDERAL
`CONSTITUTIONS. .................................................................................................... 29
`The Labor Code Listing Mechanism Does Not Constitutc an
`A.
`Unlawful Amendment to or Revision of the California Constitution ....... 29
`The Labor Code Listing Mechanism Does Not Violate Article II,
`Section 12, of the California Constitution. ............................................... 30
`IARC is not a private corporation. ................................................ 30
`l.
`The Labor Code listing mechanism does not confer any
`power, duty, or function on IARC. .............................................. 32
`The Labor Code listing mechanism incorporates a decision
`by the Legislature to identify IARC .............................................. 33
`The Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution Has No
`Application to the Operation of the Labor Code Listing Mechanism ....... 33
`Neither the Labor Code Listing Mechanism nor the Anticipated
`Listing of Glyphosatc Would Violate Monsanto’s Right to Free
`Speech Under the California or US. Constitutions.
`34
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 35
`
`III.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIS3)
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`420 Caregivers, LLC v. City ofLox Angeles
`(2012) 219 Ca1.App.4th 1316 ............................................................................................. 13, 27
`Adams v. Cooper Industries
`(ED. Ky. Apr. 4, 2007, No. 03-476-JBC) 2007 WL 1075647 ................................................. 11
`AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian
`(1989) 212 Ca1.App.3d 425 ............................................................................................. passim
`
`American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sullivan
`(1999) 526 U.S. 40 ........................................................................................................ 26, 27, 28
`
`Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education
`(1992) 2 Cal.4th 251 ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`Associated Builders v. Brock
`(3d Cir. 1988) 862 F.2d 63 .................................................................................................. 18, 23
`
`Baker v. Carr
`(1962) 369 US 186 .................................................................................................................. 33
`Baldonado v. Wyeth
`(ND. 111. Aug. 31, 2012, No.04 C 4312), 2012 WL 3779100 ................................................. 11
`Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Denton
`(2004) 120 Ca1.App.4th 333 ................................................................................... 11, 22, 28, 34
`Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors
`(1971) 20 Cal.App.3d1 ....................................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Beck Development (20., Inc. v. Southern Pacific Tramp. C0.
`(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160 ..................................................................................................... 25
`Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Mgmt., LLC
`(2013) 58 Cal.4th 329 ............................................................................................................... 35
`
`Bi-Metallic lnv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
`(1915) 239 U.S.441 .................................................................................................................. 25
`Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
`(1972) 408 U.S. 564 .................................................................................................................. 27
`Cal. Gillnetters Assn. v. Department of Fish & Game
`(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1145 ............................................................................................... 25, 33
`
`OEHHA’s Memo. ofPoints and Aulh. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIS3)
`
`iii
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian
`(1989) 48 Ca1.3d 805 ............................................................................................. 13, 30, 31, 32
`California Assn. of Retail T obacconists v. State of California
`(2003) 109 Ca1.App.4th 792 ..................................................................................................... 31
`California Chamber of Commerce v. Brown
`(2011) 196 Ca1.App.4th 233 ....................................................................................................... 5
`Canon Mobilehome Park Ownerx ' Axsn. v. City of Carmn
`(1983) 35 Ca1.3d184 ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`Current v. Atochem
`(W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2001, No. W-OO-CA-332) 2001 WL 36101283 ...................................... 11
`Exxon Mnbil Corp. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard A‘sus'exsment
`(2009) 169 Ca1.App.4th 1264 ......................................................................................... 3, 25, 28
`In re Guardianship of Ann S.
`(2009) 45 Cal.4th 1110 ....................................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`In re Taylor
`(2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019 ............................................................................................................. 12
`
`Ingredient Communication Council v. Lungren
`(1992) 2 Ca1.App.4th 1480 ....................................................................................................... 23
`Jackson Court Condominiums, Inc. v. City of New Orleans
`(5th Cir. 1989) 874 F.2d 1070 ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Kasky v. Nike, Inc.
`(2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 ............................................................................................................... 35
`
`King v. Meese
`(1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217 .............................................................................................................. 17
`
`Kugler v. Yocum
`(1968) 69 Ca1.2d 371 ........................................................................................................ passim
`Lax Lomax Land Co., LLC v. City QfLosAngeles
`(2009) 177 Ca1.App.4th 837 ..................................................................................................... 28
`Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
`(2001) 532 U.S. 189 .................................................................................................................. 29
`
`iV
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Lungren v. Superior Court
`(1996) 14 Cal.4th 294 ............................................................................................................... 16
`
`Martin v. Cty. of Contra Coxta
`(1970) 8 Ca1.App.3d 856 ........................................................................................................... 17
`Mathews v. Eldridge
`(1976) 424 U.S. 319 .................................................................................................................. 26
`
`Minnesota State 301. for Community Colleges v. Knight
`(1984) 465 US. 271 .................................................................................................................. 26
`Minor v. Happersett
`(1874), 88 U.S. 162 ................................................................................................................... 33
`
`Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Cnastal Commixsion
`(1982) 33 Cal.3d 158 ................................................................................................................ 34
`Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Bd. of Supervisors
`(1997) 54 Ca1.App.4th 565 ................................................................................................. 13, 30
`
`Paul v. Davis
`(1976) 424 US. 693 .................................................................................................................. 27
`People ex rel. Younger v. County ofEl Dorado
`(1971) 5 Ca1.3d. 480 ........................................................................................................... 14, 17
`Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materialx, Inc.
`(La.Ct.App. 2014) 168 So.3d 556 ............................................................................................. 11
`Ryan v. California Interscholastic Fed ’n - San Diego Section
`(2001) 94 Ca1.App.4th 1048 ..................................................................................................... 27
`
`Salerno v. US.
`(1987) 481 US 739 .................................................................................................................. 13
`State v. Wakeen
`(1953) 263 Wis. 401 ...................................................................................................... 17, 18, 32
`Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services
`(2006) 138 Ca1.App.4th 1215 ................................................................................................... 12
`Styrene Information and Research Center v. OEHHA
`(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1082 ............................................................................................... 5, 22
`
`V
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`T.H. v. San Diego Unified School District
`(2004) 122 Ca1.App.4th 1267 ................................................................................................... 12
`Tobe v. City of Santa Ana
`(1995) 9 Ca1.4th 1069 ................................................................................................... 12, 13, 14
`
`Today 3' Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Ed.
`(2013) 57 Cal.4th 197 ............................................................................................................... 12
`United Beverage C0. of S. Bend v. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm ’11
`(7th Cir. 1985) 760 F.2d 155 ..................................................................................................... 14
`W. Oil & Gas Ass ’11 v. Air Res. Bd.
`(1984) 37 Ca1.3d 502 ................................................................................................................ 25
`W. Reserve Oil & Gas Co. v. New
`(9th Cir. 1985) 765 F.2d 1428 ................................................................................................... 27
`
`Warren v. Marion County
`(1960) .................................................................................................................................. 20, 23
`
`Wheeler v. Gregg
`(1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 348 ......................................................................................................... 18
`Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
`(1966) 65 Ca1.2d 349 .............................................................................................. 19, 20, 21, 24
`
`Wilkinson v. Madera Community Hospital
`(1983) 144 Ca1.App.3d 436 ....................................................................................................... 19
`
`Williams v. City of San Carlos
`(1965) 233 Ca1.App.2d 290 ....................................................................................................... 34
`
`Williams v. Monsanto Co.
`(ED. La. Feb. 20, 1997, No. 93-4237) 1997 WL 73565 .......................................................... 11
`WMX Tech, Inc. v. Miller
`(9th Cir. 1999) 197 F.3d 367 ..................................................................................................... 27
`
`Zauderer v. Office afDisczPlinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio
`(1985) 471 US. 626 .................................................................................................................. 35
`
`vi
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`STATE STATUTES
`Code of Civil Procedure
`§438(c)(1)(B)(ii) .................................................................................................................. 1,12
`
`has
`
`Corporations Code, Title 1, Division 1
`§ 100 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
`§ 102 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
`§ 162 ......
`<3 171 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
`
`Corporations Code, Title 1, Division 1.5
`§ 2500 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
`§ 2509 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
`
`Corporations Code, Title 1, Division 2
`§ 5003 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
`§§ 5052-5059 ............................................................................................................................ 31
`§ 5110 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
`§§ 14600-601 ............................................................................................................................ 31
`Corporations Code, Title 1, Division 3
`§§ 12000 et seq. ........................................................................................................................ 31
`§ 13404 ...................................................................................................................................... 31
`Education Code
`§ 32062(a) ................................................................................................................................. 10
`§ 32062(b) ................................................................................................................................. 10
`Health and Safety Code
`§ 24259.9(b) ................................................................................................................................ 5
`§ 25249.5 ......................................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 4
`§ 25249.6 ................................................................................................................................. 3, 4
`§25249.8(a)
`..passim
`§ 25249.8(b) ................................................................................................................................ 3
`§ 25249.9 ..................................................................................................................................... 3
`§25249.9(a)
`.....4
`§ 25249410 ................................................................................................................................... 3
`§ 25249.10(b) .............................................................................................................................. 4
`5, 22, 34
`§25249.10(c) ......
`§111791.5(b)(2) ....................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Labor Code
`§6382 ...................................................................................................................... 10, 26, 33, 34
`§ 6382(b)(1) .................................................................................................................... 4, 10, 33
`
`vii
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIR3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Penal Code
`§374.8(c)(2)(D) ........................................................................................................................ 10
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`22 United States Code
`§ 2906-1 ................................................................................................................................. 7, 19
`STATE REGULATIONS
`California Code of Regulations, Title 27
`§ 25306(m)(1) ..................................................................................................................... 10, 21
`§ 25701 ...................................................................................................................................... 23
`§ 25703 ...................................................................................................................................... 23
`.5, 23
`§25703(b) “
`§ 25904 ........................................................................................................................................ 4
`§ 25904(b) ........................................................................................................................... 15, 22
`§ 69401.2(b)(7) ................................................................................................................... 10, 21
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`29 Code of Federal Regulations.
`§ 1910,1200 Appendix F ............................................................................................................. 9
`40 Code of Federal Regulations
`§ 707.60(c)(2)(ii) ......................................................................................................................... 9
`CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`California Constitition, Article I
`§ 2(a) ......................................................................................................................................... 35
`
`California Constitution, Article I]
`§ 12 ........................................................................................................................... 30,31,32, 33
`California Constitution, Article IV
`§ 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 29, 30
`UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`United States Constitution, Amendment 5 ...................................................................................... 27
`United States Constitution, Amendment 14 .................................................................................... 27
`United States Constitution, Article IV, § 4 ..................................................................................... 33
`
`viii
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIS3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`IARC’s Statute, Rules, and Regulations, Fourteenth Edition
`Article I ...................................................................................................................................... 7
`Afiicle 111......
`Afiicle V .......
`Article VI
`Article VII] ........................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Proposition 65 Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Law, § 1, p. 53 .................................................. 2, 16, 21
`New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 8:59-9.3( b)( 7) .................................................................. 10
`Massachusetts General Laws Ann. lllF
`§ 4(b)(2) .................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Massachusetts Regulations, Title 105
`§ 670.010(B)(1) ......................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Pennsylvania Administrative Code, Title 34
`§323.5(a)(6) .............................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Pennsylvania Statutes, Title 35
`§ 7303(a)(6) ............................................................................................................................... 10
`Rhode Island General Laws, Title 28
`§28—21-2(13) ............................................................................................................................ 11
`
`ix
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings (N0. 16CECGOOIS3)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Pursuant to Section 438, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(ii), 0f the Code of Civil Procedure,
`Defendants Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Dr. Lauren Zeise, Acting
`Director (jointly, “OEHHA”) submit the following memorandum of points and authorities in
`support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings on the First Amended Petition for Writ of
`Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (“Amended Petition”) filed by Plaintiff Monsanto
`Company (“Monsanto”) and on the Complaint in Intervention filed by Plaintiff-Intervenors
`California Citrus Mutual et a]. (the “Citrus Mutual Intervenors”).I
`INTRODUCTION
`Thirty years ago, the voters of the State of California adopted Proposition 65, the Safe
`Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of1986 (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq.).
`Proposition 65 requires the State to list chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity,
`and requires businesses to warn consumers before exposing them to the listed chemicals.
`Monsanto now files this six-part constitutional challenge to one of the fundamental provisions of
`the Act 7 the Labor Code Listing mechanism contained in section 25249.8, subdivision (a) 7
`which was the first of the statute’s four listing mechanisms to be used, has been interpreted by
`three Courts of Appeal, and has been used to list nearly 100 chemicals over the last 29 years.
`While Monsanto tries to position its challenge to the Labor Code listing mechanism as an as-
`applied challenge to the proposed listing of a single chemical, glyphosate, as this Court has
`
`already recognized, the lawsuit is a broad facial challenge to the constitutionality of the entire
`Labor Code listing mechanism. If successful, Monsanto’s challenge will upset three decades of
`settled law under Proposition 65, and potentially call into question the constitutionality of a
`
`multitude of additional federal and state laws.
`At the core of Monsanto’s argument is the claim that, by relying on scientific evaluation
`and classification of carcinogens made by the United Nations" International Agency for Research
`
`I As the California Citrus Mutual Complaint in Intervention merely adopts Monsanto’s
`claims, raising no additional claims or causes of action, OEHHA addresses the arguments set
`forth in Monsanto’s First Amended Petition without separately referencing the Complaint in
`Intervention. OEHHA’s arguments and this brief, however, apply to both pleadings.
`
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Headings (No. 16CECG00183)
`
`1
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`on Cancer (“IARC”), the Labor Code listing mechanism impermissibly delegates legislative
`authority to a non-elected body. This argument fails for multiple reasons. Most importantly, the
`Labor Code listing mechanism does not empower IARC to do anything, much less legislate: it
`merely provides a mechanism by which OEHHA can make the most of its scarce resources by
`relying on specific scientific determinations made by an expert agency, in a process that the
`voters explicitly considered and approved and that contains a number of effective safeguards.
`IARC’s scientific determinations are the gold standard in carcinogen identification, and its
`classifications are relied on by the United States and multiple states and countries. As the
`California Supreme Court noted in Kugler v. Yocum (1968) 69 Ca1.2d 371, there is simply no
`delegation of legislative power when a statute merely relies on an existingr authoritative source to
`exercise its independent authority to determine a technical factual issue. (Id. at p. 379, fn.6.)
`“Nor does the fact that a third party, whether private or governmental, performs some role in the
`application and implementation of an established legislative scheme render the legislation invalid
`
`as an unlawful delegation.” (Id. at pp. 379-380.)
`Finally, to the extent that Monsanto employs other constitutional theories to challenge the
`Labor Code listing mechanism, these claims are either derivative of the flawed impermissible-
`delegation claim, or are meritless for independent reasons. Thus, for the reasons set forth below,
`Defendants request that this Court grant judgment to OEHHA, and dismiss Monsanto’s Amended
`Petition and the Citrus Mutual Complaint in Intervention with prejudice.
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`PROPOSITION 65
`Proposition 65 (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq.)2 is a right-to-know statute adopted
`by initiative that was intended to protect public health and the environment. In enacting
`Proposition 65, the voters found that “hazardous chemicals pose a significant threat to their health
`and well-being,” and that “state government agencies have failed to provide them with adequate
`protection.” (Proposition 65 Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Law, § 1, p. 53, attached as Exh. A to
`
`I.
`
`2 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`OEHHA’s Memo. of Points and Auth. In Support of Mot. for Judgment on the Headings (No. 16CECG00183)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`OEHHA’s Request for Judicial Notice 1 [“RJN”].) Reflecting the voters’ “dissatisfaction with
`the state’s efforts at protecting the people and their water supply from exposure to hazardous
`chemicals” under preexisting law (AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian (1989) 212 Ca1.App.3d 425, 441
`[Deukmejian]), Proposition