throbber
Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 1 of 49
`
`No. 20-16758
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`XAVIER BECERRA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY
`GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,
`
`Defendants-Appellants,
`
`v.
`
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS, ET AL.,
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees.
`
`
`On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`California, No. 2:17-cv-02401-WBS-EFB (Hon. William B. Shubb)
`
`
`AMICUS BRIEF OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,
`UNITED STEELWORKERS, ALLIANCE OF NURSES FOR HEALTHY
`ENVIRONMENTS, AS YOU SOW, CALIFORNIANS FOR PESTICIDE REFORM,
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, CLEAN WATER ACTION, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
`FOUNDATION, PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA, AND
`SAN FRANCISCO BAY PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
`URGING REVERSAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
` VIVIAN H.W. WANG
`
`
`
` AVINASH KAR (SBN 240190)
` Natural Resources Defense Council
` 40 W. 20th St.
` New York, NY 10011
` (212) 727-4477
` vwang@nrdc.org
` akar@nrdc.org
`
` Counsel for Amici
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 2 of 49
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Amici Natural Resources Defense Council, United Steelworkers,
`
`Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, As You Sow, Californians
`
`for Pesticide Reform, Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action,
`
`Environmental Law Foundation, Pesticide Action Network North
`
`America, and San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
`
`are nonprofit corporations with no parent corporation and no
`
`outstanding stock shares or other securities in the hands of the public.
`
`Amici do not have any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate that has issued
`
`stock shares or other securities to the public. No publicly held
`
`corporation owns any stock in amici.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 3 of 49
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`AMICI CURIAE’S IDENTITY AND INTEREST IN THE CASE ............ 3(cid:3)(cid:3)
`ACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 7
`
`(cid:3)B
`
`(cid:3)B
`
`(cid:3)C
`
`(cid:3)A
`
`
`I.
`
`
`A. Regulation in the context of evolving scientific knowledge ............. 7(cid:3)(cid:3)
`. Proposition 65 and glyphosate ........................................................ 10(cid:3)(cid:3)
`. District court proceedings ............................................................... 15(cid:3)(cid:3)
`RGUMENT ............................................................................................. 18
`
`Courts should be wary of constitutionalizing questions at the core
`of agencies’ scientific expertise, or deciding such questions
`unnecessarily ................................................................................... 18
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.
`
`
`Scientific knowledge is constantly evolving and
`thus subject to “controversy” ................................................. 19
`
`Judicial review of the soundness of an agency’s
`scientific judgment does not fit well within a First
`Amendment framework ......................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`II. A First Amendment “controversy” standard creates
`
`perverse incentives to manufacture scientific doubt ..................... 27
`
`III. The district court erred in discounting IARC’s
`
`conclusion as an outlier opinion ..................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 38
`
`A. Understanding risk assessment ............................................ 31
`
`B. EPA’s findings on glyphosate do not conflict
`
`with IARC’s ............................................................................ 32
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 4 of 49
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA,
`
`501 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ......................................................... 23
`
`ASARCO, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin.,
`
`746 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1984) ............................................................. 8
`
`Banzhaf v. FCC,
`
`405 F.2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1968) ......................................................... 8
`
`Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown,
`
`126 Cal. Rptr. 3d. 214 (Ct. App. 2011) ..................................... 11, 19
`
`Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service
`Commission,
`
` 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ........................................................................ 17
`
`CTIA-The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley,
`
`928 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................................................... 16
`
`Ethyl Corp. v. EPA,
`
`541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ............................................................... 7
`
`Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell,
`
`102 F. Supp. 3d 583 (D. Vt. 2015) ..................................................... 9
`
`In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`
`586 F.3d 547 (8th Cir. 2009) ........................................................... 27
`
`In re: Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`
`No. 16-md-02741-VC (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 14, 2017) .................... 29
`
`Lead Indus. Ass’n v. EPA,
`
`647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ....................................................... 19
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 5 of 49
`
`League of Wilderness Defs. Blue Mountains Biodiversity
`Project v. Allen,
`
`615 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................... 23
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr,
`
`518 U.S. 470 (1996) ......................................................................... 10
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm
`Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ........................................................................... 22
`
`N. Am. Bldg. Trades Unions v. OSHA,
`
`878 F.3d 271 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) .............................. 20, 22
`
`Nat’l Elec. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell,
`
`272 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2001) ............................................................. 22
`
`Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra,
`
`138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) ..................................................................... 16
`
`NRDC v. EPA,
`
`No. 20-70787 (9th Cir. filed Mar. 20, 2020) ................................... 34
`
`NRDC v. Pritzker,
`
`828 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 8
`
`N.Y. State Rest. Ass’n v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Health,
`
`556 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 9
`
`People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior Court,
`
`926 P.2d 1042 (Cal. 1996) ................................................................. 4
`
`Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n v. Rowe,
`
`429 F.3d 294 (1st Cir. 2005) ............................................................ 26
`
`Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v. Tyson,
`
`796 F.2d 1479 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ....................................................... 23
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 6 of 49
`
`Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United
`
`Stockgrowers of Am. v. USDA,
`
`415 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) ......................................................... 37
`
`Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey,
`
`913 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................................................... 25
`
`Rural Coal. v. EPA,
`
`No. 20-70801 (9th Cir. filed Mar. 20, 2020) ................................... 34
`
`United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
`
`449 F. Supp. 2d 1, 723 (D.D.C. 2006), vacated in part
`
`on other grounds, 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ......................... 28
`
`United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall,
`
`647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ......................................................... 7
`
`Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Couns. of the Sup. Ct. of Ohio,
`
`471 U.S. 626 (1985) ......................................................................... 16
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 78l .......................................................................................... 26
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1333........................................................................................ 26
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2605(a) ................................................................................... 32
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2605(a)(1) ............................................................................... 32
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2605(a)(3) ............................................................................... 32
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343(q)(1) ................................................................................. 26
`
`42 U.S.C. § 11023...................................................................................... 26
`
`Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act,
`
`Pub. L. No. 89-92, § 4, 79 Stat. 282 (1965) ....................................... 9
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 7 of 49
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`21 C.F.R. § 202.1 ....................................................................................... 25
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200 ............................................................................... 25
`
`40 C.F.R. § 26.203 ..................................................................................... 21
`
`40 C.F.R. § 26.1203 ................................................................................... 21
`
`Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
`
`Occupational Exposure to Beryllium,
`
`82 Fed. Reg. 2470 (Jan. 9, 2017) ..................................................... 11
`
`
`STATE STATUTES
`
`
`Cal. Health & Safety Code
`
`§ 25249.10 ........................................................................................ 13
`
`§ 25249.10(c) .................................................................. 10, 12, 14, 32
`
`§ 25249.6 .............................................................................. 12, 13, 32
`
`§ 25249.8 .......................................................................................... 10
`
`§ 25249.8(a) ...................................................................................... 11
`
`§ 25249.8(a)-(b) ................................................................................ 19
`
`§ 108954 ........................................................................................... 25
`
`Cal. Labor Code
`
`§ 6382(b)(1) ...................................................................................... 11
`
`N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 33–0707 ....................................................... 26
`
`
`CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
`
`
`Title 27
`
`§ 25306(m)(1) ................................................................................... 11
`
`§ 25701(a) ......................................................................................... 12
`
`§ 25703 ............................................................................................. 12
`
`§ 25705 ....................................................................................... 10, 12
`
`§ 25721 ............................................................................................. 12
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 8 of 49
`
`§ 25904 (b)(2) ................................................................................... 10
`§ 25904 (b)(3) ................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`
`ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate (Aug. 2020) ...................... 14
`
`Austin Bradford Hill, The Environment and Disease:
`
`Association or Causation? 58 Proc. Royal Soc’y Med.
`
`295, 300 (May 1965) ........................................................................ 20
`
`David Michaels, Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s
`
`Assault on Science Threatens Your Health (2008) ........................ 28
`
`EPA, Final Report of the Dec. 13-16, 2016, FIFRA SAP
`
`Meeting ...................................................................................... 35, 36
`
`EPA, Glyphosate Interim Registration Review Decision,
`
`Case Number 0178 (Jan. 2020) ................................................. 14, 34
`
`EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper:
`
`Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential (Dec. 12, 2017) ............. 33, 35
`
`IARC, Q&A on Glyphosate (2016) ..................................................... 13, 37
`
`Mary Thornton, EPA Review Finds Flawed Tests Made By
`
`Research Firm, Wash. Post, May 13, 1983 .................................... 29
`
`Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt:
`
`How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on
`
`Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (2010) ................ 28
`
`Nat’l Acads. of Scis., Eng’g & Med., Nat’l Rsch. Council,
`
`Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:
`
`Managing the Process (1983) .......................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 9 of 49
`
`Nat’l Acads. of Scis., Eng’g & Med., Nat’l Rsch. Council,
`
`Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment
`
`(2009) ......................................................................................... 20, 21
`
`Nat’l Acads. of Scis., Eng’g & Med., Nat’l Rsch. Council,
`
`Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (1994) ........................ 31
`
`NRDC, Petition for Listing of 18 Chemicals Pursuant
`to Authoritative Bodies Mechanism of Safe
`Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of
`1986 (July 6, 2006) ............................................................................ 4
`
`
`OEHHA, Amendment to Section 25705 No Significant
`
`Risk Level–Glyphosate (Apr. 10, 2018) .......................................... 13
`
`Patricia Cohen, Roundup Maker to Pay $10 Billion to
`
`Settle Cancer Suits, N.Y. Times, June 24, 2020 ............................ 36
`
`World Health Organization, IARC Monographs on the
`
`Evaluations of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans:
`
`Preamble (2006) ............................................................................... 11
`
`U.S. Geological Survey, Estimated Annual Agricultural
`
`Pesticide Use: Pesticide Use Maps—Glyphosate
`
`(last modified June 18, 2020) .......................................................... 36
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 10 of 49
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Chemical hazard evaluations are often based on evolving scientific
`
`knowledge. Epidemiological studies, for example, are complex—many
`
`diseases have long latency periods, and we are exposed to a cocktail of
`
`chemicals from myriad sources in our daily lives. Industry groups have
`
`leveraged the uncertainty inherent in most risk assessments to
`
`undermine laws intended to inform and protect the public. The much-
`
`delayed regulation of secondhand smoke, asbestos, and lead in gasoline
`
`are prime examples of government action lagging behind science, at
`
`industry’s urging and to the detriment of our health.
`
`California’s voters passed Proposition 65—one of the nation’s most
`
`important right-to-know laws—to protect themselves from unwanted
`
`exposure to hazardous chemicals that can cause cancer or reproductive
`
`harm. The list of chemicals subject to Proposition 65’s warning
`
`requirements is based on highly technical determinations by expert
`
`agencies established to evaluate such hazards. One of these groups,
`
`identified in California’s regulations as an authoritative scientific body,
`
`is the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research
`
`on Cancer. That agency has classified glyphosate—the active ingredient
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 11 of 49
`
`in Monsanto Company’s popular weed killer, Roundup—as “probably
`
`carcinogenic to humans” based on a robust synthesis of publicly
`
`available information, including published reports, peer-reviewed
`
`studies, and government data. The finding prompted California to add
`
`glyphosate to the Proposition 65 list.
`
`Monsanto and a consortium of agribusiness groups (collectively,
`
`“Monsanto” or “Plaintiffs”) contend that the Proposition 65 warning
`
`requirement compels false and misleading speech because there is not
`
`yet consensus on the exposure levels at which glyphosate may cause
`
`cancer. Whether a science agency’s finding is so unsound as to be
`
`counterfactual is not, however, an inquiry that should be made in a
`
`First Amendment context and without a full evidentiary record.
`
`Plaintiffs’ theory, if adopted, would magnify incentives for industry to
`
`sponsor contrary studies and generate doubt among regulatory bodies
`
`in order to undercut regulations. It would also open the doors for
`
`judicial scrutiny of a wide array of regulations any time a regulated
`
`entity can point to dissenting scientific views. Such a result is neither
`
`wise nor constitutionally required.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 12 of 49
`
`AMICI CURIAE’S IDENTITY AND INTEREST IN THE CASE
`
`Amici represent the interests of health practitioners,
`
`environmental and labor organizations, and consumer and shareholder
`
`advocacy groups. They work to address health harms caused by
`
`exposure to toxic substances and support right-to-know laws, including
`
`product labeling regulations, that enable workers and consumers to
`
`better protect themselves from unwanted exposure to harmful
`
`chemicals. Amici submit this brief to provide context on regulatory
`
`agencies’ processes for assessing health risks and to illustrate how
`
`Plaintiffs’ invitation to constitutionalize complex and technical risk-
`
`assessment processes will destabilize myriad warning laws and
`
`undercut states’ ability to protect health and the environment.1
`
`Environmental and public health amici Natural Resources
`
`Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), Center for Food Safety, Clean Water
`
`Action, and Environmental Law Foundation are nonprofit groups that
`
`have worked for decades on behalf of themselves and their nationwide
`
`(cid:3)
`1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. This brief was not
`authored in whole or part by counsel for a party. No party or counsel for
`a party, and no person other than the amici curiae or their counsel,
`contributed money intended to fund the preparation or submission of
`this brief.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 13 of 49
`
`memberships, including members in California, to reform outdated
`
`chemical-safety laws and urge federal and state agencies to act on the
`
`latest science in regulating dangerous chemicals that harm health and
`
`the environment. This includes reducing exposure to harmful additives
`
`like flame retardants in furniture, PFAS in food packaging, and
`
`phthalates in children’s toys, and strengthening our clean water laws to
`
`stop pollution at its source. Amici have pushed for passage and
`
`continued enforcement of labeling and disclosure requirements,
`
`including Proposition 65, that empower consumers to choose products
`
`that are better for their health and the environment.2
`
`Worker advocacy group United Steelworkers (USW) is an
`
`international labor organization and the authorized collective
`
`bargaining representative for approximately 850,000 North American
`
`workers, including a majority of unionized workers in the chemical,
`
`(cid:3)
`2 See, e.g., NRDC, Petition for Listing of 18 Chemicals Pursuant to
`Authoritative Bodies Mechanism of Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
`Enforcement Act of 1986 (July 6, 2006), https://oehha.ca.gov/media/
`downloads/proposition-65/proposition-65/nrdctooehha070606.pdf
`(identifying chemicals that the National Institute for Occupational
`Safety and Health determined cause reproductive toxicity); People ex
`rel. Lungren v. Superior Court, 926 P.2d 1042 (Cal. 1996) (landmark
`Proposition 65 case led by Environmental Law Foundation).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 14 of 49
`
`petroleum, rubber, paper, metals, mineral mining (other than coal), and
`
`general manufacturing industries. USW represents approximately
`
`40,000 members in California, in industries including healthcare,
`
`manufacturing, education, and service. The organization’s members
`
`include workers who are exposed to chemicals in products, both in the
`
`workplace and in their non-work activities. USW advocates for right-to-
`
`know laws, which provide workers with information to assess the
`
`hazards of chemicals in consumer and other products.
`
`Healthcare professional organizations Alliance of Nurses for
`
`Healthy Environments (ANHE) and San Francisco Bay Physicians for
`
`Social Responsibility (SF Bay Physicians) are nonprofit education and
`
`advocacy organizations that draw on the expertise of health
`
`professionals to promote policies to protect human and environmental
`
`health. ANHE is a public health organization that seeks to protect
`
`people from exposure to toxins in the environment through public
`
`education, partnering with nurse researchers, and working at the local,
`
`state, and federal levels to establish and reform chemical safety laws.
`
`ANHE is concerned about the links between chemical exposure and
`
`cancers, reproductive and developmental diseases, and other chronic
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 15 of 49
`
`ailments like asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. SF Bay
`
`Physicians similarly organizes physicians and other healthcare
`
`professionals to promote policies that protect human and environmental
`
`health on matters ranging from climate change to gun violence to toxic
`
`chemicals. Both groups support right-to-know laws that enable people
`
`to better understand and limit exposure to toxic chemicals in their
`
`everyday lives.
`
`Toxics policy reform advocates Californians for Pesticide Reform
`
`(CPR) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) are,
`
`respectively, statewide and nationwide coalitions of organizations
`
`working to fundamentally shift the way hazardous pesticides are used.
`
`CPR builds leadership in communities living on the front lines of
`
`pesticide exposure, and has led successful campaigns to eliminate the
`
`use of glyphosate and other harmful synthetic pesticides from schools,
`
`parks, and other public lands in California. PANNA’s network of
`
`organizations likewise supports Proposition 65 as part of its work
`
`defending communities most at risk of exposure to hazardous
`
`pesticides, including farmworkers, family farmers, and children living
`
`in agricultural communities.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 16 of 49
`
`Shareholder advocacy group As You Sow was founded in 1992 to
`
`promote environmental and social corporate responsibility through
`
`business collaboration, coalition building, and innovative legal
`
`strategies. Among its other advocacy strategies, As You Sow works to
`
`lower consumer and occupational exposures to toxics by bringing
`
`manufacturers and industries into compliance with Proposition 65.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.(cid:3)Regulation in the context of evolving scientific knowledge
`
`Courts have long recognized that regulators must sometimes act
`
`based on the available scientific information because a wait-and-see
`
`approach can imperil health and the environment. In a seminal opinion
`
`reviewing limits on lead in gasoline, the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that
`
`“[q]uestions involving the environment are particularly prone to
`
`uncertainty,” and “speculation, conflicts in evidence, and theoretical
`
`extrapolation typify” regulatory actions in this realm. Ethyl Corp. v.
`
`EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 24 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “[S]tatutes and common sense
`
`demand regulatory action to prevent harm, even if the regulator is less
`
`than certain that harm is otherwise inevitable.” Id. at 25; accord United
`
`Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 17 of 49
`
`(noting, in review of workplace lead limits, that Congress intended
`
`agency “to act firmly even in the face of medical uncertainty, not to be
`
`paralyzed by debate surrounding diverse medical opinions” (quotation
`
`marks omitted)).
`
`This Court has similarly accorded leeway to agencies, allowing
`
`actions that “risk[] error on the side of overprotection rather than
`
`underprotection” in limiting occupational exposure to toxins, ASARCO,
`
`Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 746 F.2d 483, 490 (9th
`
`Cir. 1984) (denying industry challenge to arsenic regulations)
`
`(quotation marks omitted), and in preserving ecologically sensitive
`
`areas of the ocean, NRDC v. Pritzker, 828 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir.
`
`2016) (noting incomplete “state of the science” and “data-poor areas” of
`
`the world’s oceans).
`
`In the realm of consumer product regulations, cigarette warnings
`
`and related commercial restrictions are examples of laws issued even
`
`when the danger of smoking had “not [been] established beyond all
`
`doubt” (doubt largely sown by the tobacco industry, see infra p. 28).
`
`Banzhaf v. FCC, 405 F.2d 1082, 1097 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (upholding
`
`advertising restrictions). When the link between smoking and lung
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 18 of 49
`
`disease was emerging in the 1960s, the federal government required
`
`tobacco companies to include a statement on cigarette packs that
`
`smoking is hazardous to health. See Federal Cigarette Labeling and
`
`Advertising Act, Pub. L. No. 89-92, § 4, 79 Stat. 282, 283 (1965).
`
`Courts have also upheld food labeling rules even when the science
`
`is unsettled or the benefit of labeling is disputed. In reviewing a state
`
`disclosure rule for genetically modified ingredients, a district court
`
`acknowledged “conflicting studies assessing the health consequences” of
`
`such food and dismissed industry plaintiffs’ concern that the required
`
`label would carry a negative connotation. Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell,
`
`102 F. Supp. 3d 583, 597-98 (D. Vt. 2015); see id. at 625 (holding that
`
`requirement was not “viewpoint discrimination” even though it “reflects
`
`the State’s preference for a legislative outcome”). And in a challenge to
`
`a city rule requiring calorie information on menus, the Second Circuit
`
`rejected restaurant plaintiffs’ argument that they “do not believe that
`
`disclosing calorie information would reduce obesity, and would prefer to
`
`provide complete nutrition information” instead of calorie listings. N.Y.
`
`State Rest. Ass’n v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Health, 556 F.3d 114, 131-34 (2d Cir.
`
`2009) (rejecting First Amendment claims).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 19 of 49
`
`B.(cid:3)Proposition 65 and glyphosate
`
`Consistent with the traditional rule that states have “great
`
`latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the
`
`. . . health . . . of all persons,” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475
`
`(1996) (quotation marks omitted), California voters approved
`
`Proposition 65 to warn the public of health risks posed by products they
`
`use or to which they may be otherwise exposed. Proposition 65 requires
`
`the Governor of California to publish a list of chemicals known to the
`
`State to cause cancer. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.8. As further
`
`explained below, the inclusion of chemicals on the list is a two-step
`
`process in which the State first determines if a chemical causes harm
`
`(the hazard identification step). See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27, § 25904
`
`(b)(2), (3). If so, the State then identifies the circumstances in which
`
`harm is expected, including assessing levels of chemical exposure at
`
`which harm may occur (the risk characterization step). See id. § 25705;
`
`Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.10(c).
`
`A chemical is “known to the state to cause cancer” if it is
`
`recognized as a carcinogen by specified expert entities or identified on
`
`certain lists—including, as relevant here, lists under California Labor
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 20 of 49
`
`Code section 6382(b)(1). See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.8(a)
`
`(incorporating labor code provision). The Labor Code provision, in turn,
`
`incorporates chemicals identified by IARC as human or animal
`
`carcinogens. Cal. Labor Code § 6382(b)(1); see also Cal. Code Regs. tit.
`
`27, § 25306(m)(1). IARC is a highly respected intergovernmental
`
`research arm of the United Nation’s World Health Organization, tasked
`
`with making carcinogen hazard assessments. See World Health
`
`Organization, IARC Monographs on the Evaluations of Carcinogenic
`
`Risks to Humans: Preamble 1 (2006).3 Federal and state regulators
`
`routinely refer to IARC’s independent assessments and recognize the
`
`agency as one of the world’s leading authorities on carcinogen analysis.
`
`See, e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational
`
`Exposure to Beryllium, 82 Fed. Reg. 2470, 2540 (Jan. 9, 2017) (citing
`
`IARC’s findings on lung cancer); Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown,
`
`126 Cal. Rptr. 3d. 214, 236 (Ct. App. 2011) (noting that IARC was one of
`
`“several well-recognized sources to which manufacturers already
`
`routinely referred to obtain hazard information”); see also 6-ER-1231 –
`
`(cid:3)
`3 http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/CurrentPreamble.pdf
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 21 of 49
`
`6-ER-1236 (listing dozens of state regulations that rely on IARC
`
`carcinogenicity findings).
`
`If a product contains a Proposition 65-listed chemical, the
`
`business is generally required to give a “clear and reasonable warning”
`
`regarding that exposure. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.6.
`
`Businesses may seek an exemption from the requirement by requesting
`
`a “safe use determination” from California’s Office of Environmental
`
`Health Hazard Assessment, showing that the level of exposure poses
`
`“no significant risk” of cancer. Id. § 25249.10(c); see Cal. Code Regs. tit.
`
`27, § 25705. For many of the listed chemicals, the State calculates an
`
`exposure level below which the risk is deemed not significant. Cal. Code
`
`Regs. tit. 27, § 25705. The State also provides guidelines to businesses
`
`on how to conduct quantitative risk assessments to determine whether
`
`a product causes an exposure that poses no significant risk. Cal. Health
`
`& Safety Code § 25249.10(c); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27, §§ 25701(a), 25703,
`
`25705, 25721.
`
`Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used in
`
`agriculture (including soybean, cotton, and oats), parks, home gardens,
`
`and residential landscapes. IARC determined in 2015 that glyphosate is
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 22 of 49
`
`“probably carcinogenic” to humans based on: “limited evidence” of
`
`cancer in studies of real-world occupational exposures to formulated
`
`products; “sufficient evidence” from laboratory rodent studies; and,
`
`“strong evidence” that pure glyphosate and glyphosate-based products
`
`causes the kind of cell damage that is known to lead to cancer. IARC,
`
`Q&A on Glyphosate (2016)4; see also 6-ER-1126 (IARC Monograph).
`
`Following IARC’s finding, in July 2017, the Office of
`
`Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) placed glyphosate
`
`on the State’s Proposition 65 list. Businesses were therefore required to
`
`include a warning label on glyphosate-containing products starting July
`
`2018, unless they could show that the level of exposure from the product
`
`posed no significant risk of cancer. See Cal. Health & Safety Code
`
`§§ 25249.6, 25249.10. This requirement never went into effect, however,
`
`because of the ensuing litigation. See infra p. 16.
`
`In April 2018, after providing public notice and opportunity to
`
`comment, California finalized the No Significant Risk Level for
`
`glyphosate at 1100 micrograms/day. OEHHA, Amendment to Section
`
`(cid:3)
`4 https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/QA_Glyphosate.pdf
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010574, DktEntry: 22, Page 23 of 49
`
`25705 No Significant Risk Level–Glyph

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket