Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 1 of 42
`
`NO. 20-16758
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS, et al.,
`Plaintiffs/Appellees,
`v.
`
`XAVIER BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
`Defendants/Appellants.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Eastern District of California
`No. 2:17-cv-02401-WBS-EFB
`Hon. William B. Shubb
`
`BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
`UC BERKELEY CENTER FOR
`CONSUMER LAW & ECONOMIC JUSTICE
`IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
`
`SETH E. MERMIN
`(Cal Bar No. 189194)
`ELIZA DUGGAN
`(Cal Bar No. 312621)
`CENTER FOR CONSUMER LAW
`AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
`UC Berkeley School of Law
`225 Bancroft Way
`Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
`Telephone: (510) 393-8254
`tmermin@law.berkeley.edu
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`CLAUDIA POLSKY
`(Cal. Bar No. 185505)
`Assistant Clinical Professor of Law
`UC Berkeley School of Law
`225 Bancroft Way
`Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
`Telephone: (510) 642-5398
`cpolsky@law.berkeley.edu
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 2 of 42
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`No party to this filing has a for-profit parent corporation, and no publicly held
`
`
`
`corporation owns 10% or more of the stock of any party to this filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 3 of 42
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........................................................................ 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 2
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 7
`
`ARGUMENT......................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`Underlying Protection for Commercial Speech: The Free Flow Of Factual
`Information To Consumers. ..........................................................................10
`
`Compelled Disclosures of Factual and Uncontroversial Commercial
`Information. ..................................................................................................11
`
`I. The Glyphosate Disclosure Promotes The Key First Amendment Value
`II. The Glyphosate Warning Readily Meets the Lenient Standard That Applies to
`A. Because the Disclosure Provides Factual and Noncontroversial
`2. Scientific organizations may come to different conclusions, but that
`3. Manufacturers of toxic substances, including Monsanto, have a
`4. There is mounting evidence of Monsanto’s attempts to conceal the
`B. The Disclosure Is Reasonably Related to the Government’s Substantial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Information, It Is Subject to Review Under the Zauderer Standard. ......12
`
`1. The warning comprises statements that are wholly factual. .............13
`
`does not mean their statements are not factual — “uncontroversial”
`need not mean “unanimous.” ..........................................................16
`
`demonstrated history of attempting to create scientific confusion
`once their products have been identified as hazardous. ...................21
`
`dangers of exposure to glyphosate and to generate the “controversy”
`on which it now relies. ....................................................................24
`
`Interest in Protecting Public Health and Informing Purchasers About the
`Risks of Glyphosate Exposure. .............................................................27
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 4 of 42
`
`
`
`C. The Proposed Glyphosate Disclosure Is Neither Unjustified Nor
`
`Unduly Burdensome. ............................................................................27
`
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................31
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.....................................................................32
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..............................................................................33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 5 of 42
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island,
` 517 U.S. 484 (1996) ..........................................................................................10
`
`American Beverage Association v. San Francisco,
` 916 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 13, 32
`
`CTIA - The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, California,
` 928 F.3d 832 (9th Cir.), cert. denied (2019) (CTIA II) ................................ passim
`
`Disc. Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States,
` 674 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................30
`
`First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti,
` 435 U.S. 765 (1978) ..........................................................................................10
`
`Ibanez v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Regulation,
` 512 U.S. 136 (1994) ..........................................................................................31
`
`In re Roundup Prod. Liab. Litgation,
` No. 16-CV-0525-VC, 2019 WL 3219360, (N.D. Cal., July 12, 2019) ......... 27, 28
`
`In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation,
` MDL No. 2741, No. 3:19-cv-02224 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2021) .................... passim
`
`Johnson v. Monsanto Co.,
` 52 Cal. App. 5th 434 (2020) .................................................................... 4, 27, 29
`
`Milavetz, Gallup & Milavetz v. U.S.,
` 559 U.S. 229 (2010) ..........................................................................................11
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment,
` 22 Cal. App. 5th 534, 556 (2018) ......................................................................22
`
`N.Y. State Rest. Ass’n v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Health,
` 556 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2009) ..............................................................................30
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 6 of 42
`
`Nat’l Elec. Mfrs. Ass’n (NEMA) v. Sorrell,
` 272 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 16, 23
`
`Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra,
` 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2376 (2018) ....................................................................... 15, 31
`
`Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Owen,
` 873 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................. 16, 31, 32
`
`Philip Morris USA, Inc., v. FDA
` No. 1:20-cv-01181 (D.D.C., May 6, 2020) ........................................................23
`
`Philip Morris v. U.S.,
` 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .........................................................................13
`
`Pilliod v. Monsanto Co.,
` No. RG-17-862702, 2019 WL 3540107 (Cal. Super. July 26, 2019) ..................27
`
`Statutes
`
`CAL. HEALTH & SAF. CODE § 25249.8(a) ............................................................... 5
`
`CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 6382(b)(1), (d) ........................................................................ 5
`
`
`Regulations
`
`
`Cal. Code Regs. tit 27, § 25703 .............................................................................. 5
`
`Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27, § 25603 ............................................................................. 7
`
`Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27, § 25600 ............................................................................29
`
`Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27, § 25601 ............................................................................30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 7 of 42
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Benbrook, Charles M., How Did the US EPA and IARC Reach Diametrically
`Opposed Conclusions on the Genotoxicity of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides?, 31
`ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EUROPE (2019) ........................................................ 2
`
`
`Benjamin, Sailas et al., Phthalates Impact Human Health: Epidemiological
`Evidences and Plausible Mechanism of Action, 340 J. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
`360 (2017) .........................................................................................................16
`
`
`Bush, Evan, Monsanto Will Pay $95 Million in PCB Settlement, SEATTLE TIMES
`(Jun. 24, 2020) ...................................................................................................25
`
`
`CDC, Smoking & Tobacco Use, 2000 Surgeon General’s Report Highlights:
`Tobacco Timeline (2000) ............................................................................. 19, 23
`
`
`Christenson, Kara, Interpreting the Purposes of Initiatives: Proposition 65, 40
`HASTINGS L.J. 1031 (1989) ................................................................................. 6
`
`
`Cohen, Patricia, $2 Billion Verdict Against Monsanto is Third to Find Roundup
`Caused Cancer, N.Y. TIMES (May 13, 2019) ................................................... 2, 6
`
`
`Cohen, Patricia, Roundup Maker to Pay $10 Billion to Settle Cancer Suits, N.Y.
`TIMES (June 24, 2020). ....................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Cressey, Daniel, Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer, NATURE – News
`Explainer (Mar. 24, 2015) .................................................................................. 1
`
`
`Egelko, Bob, Roundup Cancer Case Appeals—by Plaintiff and Defendant—Turned
`Down by Calif. Supreme Court, S.F. CHRONICLE (Oct. 21, 2020) ....................... 4
`
`
`Environmental Protection Agency,
` DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey (1975) ...............................................19
`
`Environmental Protection Agency,
` Learn About Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ................................................25
`
`European Environmental Agency, LATE LESSONS FROM EARLY WARNINGS:
`SCIENCE, PRECAUTION, INNOVATION (Jan. 2013) .......................................... 18, 21
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 8 of 42
`
`Gillam, Carey, Another Monsanto Roundup Case Likely to Settle as Bayer Works
`Through Tens of Thousands of Cancer Claims, THE DEFENDER (Jan. 15, 2021) . 3
`
`
`Gillam, Carey, WHITEWASH: THE STORY OF A WEED KILLER, CANCER, AND THE
`CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE (2017) ........................................................................26
`
`
`Hakim, Danny, Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in
`Unsealed Documents, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 14, 2017)............................................26
`
`
`Hals, Tom, Bayer Reaches $2 Billion Deal Over Future Roundup Cancer Claims,
`REUTERS (Feb. 3, 2021) .....................................................................................15
`
`
`International Agency for Research on Cancer, 12 IARC MONOGRAPHS ON THE
`EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS TO HUMANS: SOME ORGANOPHOSPHATE
`INSECTICIDES AND HERBICIDES (2017)................................................................. 1
`
`
`Krantz, Laura, Harvard Professor Failed to Disclose Connection, BOSTON GLOBE
`(Oct. 1, 2015) ....................................................................................................26
`
`
`Kristi Coale, As Cancer Concerns Lead City to Ban Herbicide, S.F. Scales Back
`Use of Roundup, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS (Nov. 18, 2020) ....................... 8
`
`
`Lemen, Richard, Toward an Asbestos Ban in the United States, 14 INT’L J. ENVIR.
`RES. PUB. HEALTH 1302 (2017) .........................................................................20
`
`
`Markowitz, Gerald, Unleashed on an Unsuspecting World: The Asbestos
`Information Association and Its Role in Perpetuating a National Epidemic, AM.
`J. PUB. HEALTH (2016) .......................................................................................24
`
`
`Messick, Graham, 60 MINUTES: TOXIC TOWN (Aug. 31, 2003) ........................ 19, 24
`
`Michaels, David, DOUBT IS THEIR PRODUCT (2008) .................................. 20, 22, 23
`
`National Cancer Institute, VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE: HEALTH EFFECTS OF
`HERBICIDES USED IN VIETNAM (1994) ................................................................19
`
`
`Nelson, Arthur, Monsanto Sold Banned Chemicals for Years Despite Known
`Health Risks, Archives Reveal, THE GUARDIAN (Aug. 10, 2017) ........................24
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 9 of 42
`
`O’Hagan, Sean, Toxic Neighbor: Monsanto and the Poisoned Town, THE
`GUARDIAN (Apr. 20, 2018) ................................................................................24
`
`
`ORESKES, NAOMI & ERIK M. CONWAY, MERCHANTS OF DOUBT: HOW A HANDFUL
`OF SCIENTISTS OBSCURED THE TRUTH IN ISSUES FROM TOBACCO SMOKE TO
`GLOBAL WARMING (2010) ..................................................................... 19, 22, 23
`
`
`Polsky, Claudia & Megan Schwarzman, The Hidden Success of a Conspicuous
`Law: Proposition 65 and the Reduction of Toxic Chemical Exposures, 47
`ECOLOGY LAW Q. 823 (2020) ................................................................ 16, 17, 21
`
`
`Post, Robert, The Constitutional Status of Commercial Speech,
` 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1 (2000) ................................................................................10
`
`Reuters, Monsanto Ordered to Pay 289 Million in Roundup Cancer Trial, N.Y.
`TIMES (Aug. 10, 2018) ........................................................................................ 2
`
`
`Spears, Ellen Griffith, BAPTIZED IN PCBS: RACE, POLLUTION, AND JUSTICE IN AN
`ALL-AMERICAN TOWN (2014) ............................................................................25
`
`
`Sullivan, Emily, Groundskeeper Accepts Reduced $78 Million Award in Monsanto
`Cancer Suit, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO (Nov. 1, 2018) ....................................... 3
`
`
`Zaveri, Mihir, Monsanto Weedkiller Roundup Was “Substantial Factor” in
`Causing Cancer, Jury Says, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 19, 2019) ................................... 2
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 10 of 42
`
`INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
`
`
`
`The UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice works to
`
`ensure safe, equal, and fair access to the marketplace. Through research and
`
`advocacy, the Center acts to create a society where economic security and
`
`opportunity, as well as health and safety, are available to all. The Center works on
`
`behalf of low-income consumers on a wide range of issues, advocating for
`
`development and enforcement of laws protecting and advancing consumer rights,
`
`economic justice, and public health.
`
`
`
`The Center has participated in cases in this Court, the United States Supreme
`
`Court, and federal and state courts around the nation on issues of commercial
`
`speech and public health and safety. The Center appears in this proceeding to
`
`provide context on recent developments involving glyphosate, background on
`
`analogous efforts to provide important health information to the public, and
`
`perspective on the speech-enhancing First Amendment framework used to assess
`
`required factual disclosures like the one here at issue.1
`
`
`1 The parties have consented to the filing of this brief. No counsel of any party to
`this proceeding authored any part of this brief. No party or party’s counsel, or
`person other than amicus, contributed money to the preparation or submission of
`this brief.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 11 of 42
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` Roundup herbicide products, manufactured by the Monsanto Corporation,
`
`use the active ingredient glyphosate. Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used
`
`and most profitable weed-killing chemical.2
`
`The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an independent,
`
`authoritative scientific body within the World Health Organization, determined in
`
`2015 that glyphosate is a “probable” human carcinogen.3 IARC reached its
`
`conclusion about glyphosate’s potential to cause cancer—which ran contrary to
`
`that of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—by reviewing 113
`
`scientific studies of glyphosate, most of them peer-reviewed; by analyzing
`
`chemical assays of the glyphosate found in consumer products; and by considering
`
`the extensive use of glyphosate in occupational and residential property settings
`
`(such as groundskeeping, weed control on highway verges, and home landscaping),
`
`rather than simply the use of glyphosate on commercial food crops.4
`
`
`2 Daniel Cressey, Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer, NATURE – News
`Explainer (Mar. 24, 2015), https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-
`linked-to-cancer-1.17181.
`3 International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) (2017), 12 IARC
`MONOGRAPHS ON THE EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS TO HUMANS: SOME
`ORGANOPHOSPHATE INSECTICIDES AND HERBICIDES, https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-
`content/uploads/2018/07/mono112.pdf.
`4 Charles M. Benbrook, How Did the US EPA and IARC Reach Diametrically
`Opposed Conclusions on the Genotoxicity of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides?, 31
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 12 of 42
`
` California juries have since returned multi-million-dollar plaintiffs’ verdicts
`
`to public school groundskeeper Dwayne Johnson, who developed non-Hodgkins
`
`lymphoma (NHL) after years of occupational use of Roundup5; Ed Hardeman, a
`
`landowner who developed NHL after decades of using Roundup for weed control6;
`
`and husband and wife home landscapers Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who both
`
`developed NHL—a noncontagious illness—after extended use of Roundup.7
`
`In January 2021, the estate of Jaime Alvarez Calderon, a winery worker who
`
`sprayed glyphosate on Sutter Home vineyards for thirty-three years and was struck
`
`
`ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EUROPE (2019), https://enveurope.springeropen.com/
`articles/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7. In contrast to IARC’s evaluative process,
`EPA relied mostly on unpublished studies funded by Monsanto, 99% of which
`yielded negative results for cancer potential; EPA examined data from studies on
`technical (i.e., laboratory-grade) glyphosate, rather than the glyphosate in finished
`herbicide products; and EPA restricted its risk analysis to typical dietary exposures
`in the general population, omitting both exposure risks from occupational uses of
`glyphosate in weed control and risks from heavy-use scenarios. Id.
`5 Reuters, Monsanto Ordered to Pay 289 Million in Roundup Cancer Trial, N.Y.
`TIMES (Aug. 10, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/business/
`monsanto-roundup-cancer-trial.html?module=inline.
`6 Mihir Zaveri, Monsanto Weedkiller Roundup Was “Substantial Factor” in
`Causing Cancer, Jury Says, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 19, 2019), https://www.nytimes.
`com/2019/03/19/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer.html.
`7 Patricia Cohen, $2 Billion Verdict Against Monsanto is Third to Find Roundup
`Caused Cancer, N.Y. TIMES (May 13, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019
`/05/13/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict.html.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 13 of 42
`
`with NHL, obtained a favorable settlement after a failed Monsanto bid for
`
`summary judgment.8 He did not live to see this outcome.9
`
`Juries and judges in these cases found Monsanto’s misconduct so serious
`
`that they awarded punitive damages running to eight figures—after being reduced
`
`by the court.10 Those damages were based on Monsanto’s deliberate distortion of
`
`glyphosate science; its improper efforts to influence federal regulators; and its
`
`
`8 Carey Gillam, Another Monsanto Roundup Case Likely to Settle as Bayer Works
`Through Tens of Thousands of Cancer Claims, THE DEFENDER (Jan. 15, 2021),
`https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/monsanto-roundup-case-bayer-cancer-
`claims/
`9 Suggestion of Death at 1, In Re Roundup Products Liability, MDL 2741 (N.D.
`Cal., Nov. 12. 2020), https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Alvarez-
`plaintiff-dies.pdf (“Plaintiff Jaime Alvarez Calderon, after being deposed in this
`litigation, passed away from non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma complications”).
`10 See, e.g., Emily Sullivan, Groundskeeper Accepts Reduced $78 Million Award in
`Monsanto Cancer Suit, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO (Nov. 1, 2018), https://www.npr.
`org/2018/11/01/662812333/groundskeeper-accepts-reduced-78-million-in-
`monsanto-cancer-suit (describing trial court’s reduction of award from $289 to $78
`million).
`A California appeals court further reduced the jury award, while
`acknowledging “significant” evidence that Johnson would continue to experience
`significant pain and suffering from his Roundup-induced illness. Johnson v.
`Monsanto Co., 52 Cal. App. 5th 434, 450 (2020). The court’s reasoning was that
`Johnson — whose body was covered with lesions from NHL by the time of trial,
`and whose intensive chemotherapy left him too ill and weak to play with his
`children — was only expected to live for two years, reducing his entitlement to
`damages for future pain and suffering. Id. at 452.
`The California Supreme Court declined to review the case, allowing the
`$21.5 million damage award to stand. Bob Egelko, Roundup Cancer Case
`Appeals—by Plaintiff and Defendant—Turned Down by Calif. Supreme Court, S.F.
`CHRONICLE (Oct. 21, 2020), https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/
`Roundup-cancer-case-appeals-by-plaintiff-and-15665572.php.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 14 of 42
`
`campaign to discredit and defund IARC, the body that had unfavorably assessed
`
`glyphosate’s safety. Important to consistent plaintiffs’ victories—and
`
`corresponding pressure on Monsanto for global settlement—were trial court
`
`findings that Monsanto had unlawfully failed to warn Roundup users about the
`
`product’s potential to cause cancer.
`
`In 2020, Monsanto announced its willingness to pay $10 billion to resolve
`
`nearly 100,000 lawsuits regarding Roundup’s carcinogenicity, in a deal “among
`
`the largest settlements ever in U.S. civil litigation.”11 In a part of the settlement
`
`valued at up to $2 billion, Monsanto in 2021 proposed to address class plaintiffs’
`
`claims by establishing “a compensation fund . . . [for] class members who have or
`
`develop NHL, together with a broad program of diagnostic assistance for NHL risk
`
`and other programmatic benefits.”12
`
`In this agreement, Monsanto committed to seek federal approval to put on its
`
`product labeling a link to scientific studies about glyphosate, including studies that
`
`implicate glyphosate in NHL.13 Monsanto thus agreed to inform Roundup
`
`
`11 Patricia Cohen, Roundup Maker to Pay $10 Billion to Settle Cancer Suits, N.Y.
`TIMES (June 24, 2020).
`12 See Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement at 2, In re Roundup
`Products Liability Litigation (N.D. Cal., MDL No. 2741, No. 3:19-cv-02224, Feb.
`3, 2021), https://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/Class_Plan_Documents.pdf.
`13 Id., at Settlement Agreement, Art. IX (“Within 180 days of entry of the Final
`Order and Judgment, the Defendant will seek permission from the EPA to include
`in the labeling of Roundup Products a reference to information regarding whether
`exposure to Roundup Products causes NHL in humans.”).
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 15 of 42
`
`consumers—and by extension, to warn them—of IARC’s determination that
`
`glyphosate probably causes cancer.
`
`As injured individuals successfully pressed tort claims that glyphosate
`
`caused their lymphoma, the State of California, pursuant to its long-standing
`
`Proposition 65 right-to-know law, independently sought to require Monsanto to
`
`warn Roundup users that glyphosate is a carcinogen. The State did so based on
`
`IARC’s finding which, by automatic operation of state law, compels a Prop 65
`
`listing of glyphosate as cancer-causing.14 A Prop 65 listing in turn compels a
`
`cancer warning where consumer exposure levels may exceed specified risk
`
`levels.15
`
`Like the IARC determination and certain other studies that Monsanto has
`
`now through settlement agreed to provide to consumers via a web link on Roundup
`
`product labeling,16 the State-required factual disclosure would warn consumers
`
`that, according to IARC (but not EPA), glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.
`
`
`14 Prop 65 mandates that chemicals be included on the state’s list of known
`carcinogens if any specified “authoritative body,” including IARC, formally
`identifies the substance as being known to cause cancer. See CAL. HEALTH & SAF.
`CODE § 25249.8(a); CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 6382(b)(1), (d).
`15 For carcinogens, the significant risk level is 1 in 100,000 excess cases of cancer
`assuming lifetime exposure at the chemical level in question. Cal. Code Regs. tit
`27 § 25703(b).
`16 See Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement, supra n.12,
`at 3.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 16 of 42
`
`Consistent with the dual inform-and-protect purposes of Proposition 65,17
`
`this warning would in turn enhance consumer choice, providing product users the
`
`option to mitigate their glyphosate exposure, such as by using personal protective
`
`equipment. The Pilliods’ lawyer noted, for example, that homeowners like Alva
`
`and Alberta were at greater risk of glyphosate exposure than professional
`
`gardeners, because the couple would not have been told to wear gloves or other
`
`protective clothing.18
`
`Despite this litany of adjudicated harms, Monsanto contends that requiring it
`
`to warn Roundup product users that exposure to glyphosate may cause cancer
`
`violates the First Amendment. It does not.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The First Amendment favors the provision of information. Required
`
`commercial disclosures are subject to lenient review, because they “trench much
`
`more narrowly” on speech interests than do restrictions on speech. Zauderer v.
`
`Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985) (a company’s
`
`“constitutionally protected interest in not providing any particular factual
`
`information . . . is minimal.”) Indeed, providing information to consumers about a
`
`commercial product is the reason that the First Amendment applies to advertising
`
`
`17 Kara Christenson, Interpreting the Purposes of Initiatives: Proposition 65, 40
`HASTINGS L.J. 1031, 1065 (1989).
`18 Cohen, supra n.7.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 17 of 42
`
`and other marketing in the first instance, rather than applying solely to political,
`
`religious, or artistic speech. Id.
`
`
`
`This Circuit’s precedent permits the State of California to require an accurate
`
`factual disclosure that is reasonably related to a substantial government interest and
`
`neither unjustified nor unduly burdensome. CTIA - The Wireless Ass’n v. City of
`
`Berkeley, California, 928 F.3d 832, 848 (9th Cir.), cert. denied (2019) (CTIA II).
`
`The Prop 65 warning at issue meets this standard.19
`
`The required disclosure states, accurately, that IARC has determined that
`
`glyphosate is a probable carcinogen; it notes, correctly, that EPA has not agreed
`
`with that determination; and it advances California’s interest in providing its
`
`residents information about their health and safety. Further—as thousands of
`
`victims and millions to billions of dollars in tort judgments make clear—the
`
`disclosure is not unjustified. Additionally, as Monsanto’s (inherently voluntary)
`
`global settlement proposal demonstrates, providing the required disclosure is not
`
`unduly burdensome.
`
`The state-mandated Prop 65 warning about glyphosate’s cancer-causing
`
`potential comports with the First Amendment. And it responds to the increased
`
`
`19 The words “warning” and “disclosure” are here used interchangeably, because
`Prop 65 disclosures for chemical exposures are required to contain the signal word
`“warning.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27 § 25603(a)(2).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 18 of 42
`
`public concern over the health effects of Roundup that has, for example, driven
`
`California cities to abandon or greatly reduce use of the herbicide.20 It also serves
`
`the interests of all Californians using products containing glyphosate, who would
`
`benefit from truthful information about its hazards.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Since IARC’s 2015 determination that glyphosate probably causes cancer in
`
`humans, Monsanto has been ordered or agreed to pay more than $10 billion to
`
`compensate individuals who assert that Roundup products have caused or will
`
`cause them substantial harm. Against that background, the company’s claim that
`
`the First Amendment prevents users of Roundup (and other products containing
`
`glyphosate) from being informed of the products’ hazards strains credulity.
`
`California has not banned the use of glyphosate. It has not restricted the
`
`product’s use. All it has done is to require that businesses profiting from
`
`glyphosate-based products inform consumers of the products’ risks, so that they
`
`may make informed decisions about their own health and safety. That is not
`
`something that the U.S. Constitution forbids. It is, to the contrary, precisely the
`
`
`20 Kristi Coale, As Cancer Concerns Lead City to Ban Herbicide, S.F. Scales Back
`Use of Roundup, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS (Nov. 18, 2020), https://www.
`sfpublicpress.org/as-cancer-concerns-lead-cities-to-ban-herbicide-sf-scales-back-
`use-of-roundup/ (describing many California cities’ reduction or elimination of
`Roundup use on public green spaces since IARC’s 2015 determination).
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 19 of 42
`
`truthful exchange of publicly salient information that the First Amendment is
`
`meant to promote.
`
`I.
`
`The Glyphosate Disclosure Promotes The Key First Amendment
`Value Underlying Protection for Commercial Speech: The Free Flow
`Of Factual Information To Consumers.
`
`The First Amendment does not prevent public agencies from requiring the
`
`disclosure of factual information that may assist members of the public in making
`
`considered decisions about their health and safety. Indeed, the rationale
`
`undergirding First Amendment protection for commercial speech is to “further[]
`
`the societal interest in the free flow of commercial information.” First Nat’l Bank
`
`v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 792 n.30 (1978); see also 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode
`
`Island, 517 U.S. 484, 501 (1996) (plur. op.) (“requir[ing] the disclosure of
`
`beneficial consumer information … is consistent with the reasons for according
`
`constitutional protection to commercial speech”).
`
`In the context of compelled commercial speech, the Court has consistently
`
`held that companies may be required to provide consumers with factual and
`
`accurate information, Milavetz, Gallup & Milavetz v. U.S., 559 U.S. 229, 249
`
`(2010), and that requirements that commercial advertisements and packaging
`
`include relevant factual information are subject to lenient First Amendment review.
`
`CTIA II, 928 F.3d at 844. As a noted First Amendment scholar explains:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 20-16758, 02/19/2021, ID: 12010583, DktEntry: 23, Page 20 of 42
`
`Within commercial speech . . . the primary constitutional value concerns the
`circulation of accurate and useful information. For the state to mandate
`disclosures designed more fully and completely to convey information is
`thus to advance, rather than to contradict, pertinent constitutional values.
`
`Robert Post, The Constitutional Status of Commercial Speech, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1,
`
`28 (2000).
`
`The Prop 65 disclosure at issue here provides purchasers of products
`
`containing glyphosate with crucial information: that a globally respected scientific
`
`organization has made a determination that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen,
`
`and a single U.S. agency has arrived at a different conclusion. Providing that
`
`information furthers the fundamental values of the First Amendment. CTIA II, 928
`
`F.3d at 852 (“Protection of the robust and free flow of accurate information is the
`
`principal First Amendment justification for prot