The ruling in the case Monsanto v. Durnell shields pesticide manufacturers like Bayer–Monsanto, the maker of glyphosate-based Roundup, in failure-to-warn lawsuits. A legal expert explained to Food Safety Magazine how this decision potentially weakens state right-to-know chemical health warning laws like California's Proposition 65.
A law to protect the public health is a good idea, but it should be based on a risk assessment—i.e., whether exposure to the chemical really elicits an adverse reaction. Perhaps it is time to update or rethink California's Prop 65.
Despite a lack of scientific support to justify a carcinogenic risk determination, hundreds of companies have been sued under California's Prop 65 for failing to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning on food products containing acrylamide.
Regulated food businesses should review their portfolio of products sold in California for use of the short-form or long-form Proposition 65 warning labels, which will be required in the state starting January 1, 2028.
If the resolution is passed, the California agency responsible for overseeing Proposition 65 (the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) would be urged to add "processed meat" to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals, thereby requiring processed meat to carry warnings.
