A federal judge's recent discussion about why glyphosate should not have a warning label in California, despite the efforts of trial lawyers and the environmental groups they pay, not only shows the label would have no scientific validity, it calls into doubt Proposition 65 itself.

Yet that may not matter. Prop 65, passed in 1986, is a voter referendum, not a law passed by the legislature, so it is unassailable at its core. And when it was passed, IARC was one of the groups which would lead to a compound being automatically included then because IARC was still a legitimate body. It was only beginning in 2009 that IARC was taken over by activist epidemiologists thanks to Chris Wild at IARC in France and Dr. Linda Birnbaum at National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in the US. Both had to know that activists like Martyn Smith and Chris Portier wanted inside IARC specifically to get chemicals listed as carcinogens for the attorneys paying them. 

Now, with IARC declaring bacon, toast, hot tea, glyphosate and everything else Californians consume a health hazard, the public doubts Prop 65 has any value at all. It is not informing residents about cancer-causing chemicals because they claim everything is.

“Given the evidence in the record, the court questions whether California has shown that requiring a Proposition 65 warning for glyphosate directly advances the law’s stated interest in informing Californians about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer,” U.S. District Judge William Shubb in Sacramento said in his order upholding a preliminary injunction he issued in February.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, was supposed to have a warning label starting July but that is not going to happen now. It is just waiting on summary judgment.