California EPA Proposed Amendments to Article 6 Clear and Reasonable Warnings, Warnings for Exposures to Glyphosate from Consumer Products

Monet Vela 
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 
California Environmental Protection Agency 
1001 I Street, 23rd Floor 
PO. Box 4010 
Sacramento, California 95812-4010 
Phone: (916) 323-2517 

Submitted electronically via https://oehha.ca.gov/comments 

RE: CropLife America and RISE Comments in Opposition to the California Environmental Protection Agency on Proposed Amendments to Article 6 Clear and Reasonable Warnings, New Sections 25607.48 and 25607.49 Warnings for Exposures to Glyphosate from Consumer Products 

Dear Ms. Vela: 

CropLife America and RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA or the Agency) in response to the proposed rulemaking that would add Sections 25607.48 and 25607.49, relating to warnings for exposures to glyphosate from consumer products, to the Title 27, Article 6 Clear and Reasonable Warnings regulations (the Proposed Amendments). 

Under the Proposed Amendments—specifically the new Section 25607.49—OEHHA would require consumer products containing glyphosate to include the following warning on its label: 

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65 WARNING. Using this product can expose you to glyphosate. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. Other authorities, including USEPA, have determined that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer, or that the evidence is inconclusive. A wide variety of factors affect your personal cancer risk, including the level and duration of exposure to 2 the chemical. For more information, including ways to reduce your exposure, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/glyphosate.1 

As outlined more fully below, CropLife America and RISE oppose the Proposed Amendments. 

• First, the proposed warning violates the First Amendment and is at odds with both the weight of scientific authority and the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in National Association of Wheat Growers v. Becerra, 468 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (E.D. Cal. 2020). 

• Second, federal law preempts OEHHA’s proposed rulemaking. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts state-law labeling requirements that are “in addition to or different from” those imposed by EPA. 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b). EPA has concluded that glyphosate is not likely be carcinogenic in humans and that a cancer warning is not appropriate on the FIFRA label for glyphosate. In fact, EPA has already informed glyphosate registrants that a Proposition 65 cancer warning would be false and misleading, and in violation of FIFRA. The warning in the Proposed Amendments is in addition to and different from the label requirements imposed by EPA under FIFRA and is, therefore, preempted. 

• Finally, rather than impose unlawful and unconstitutional labeling requirements on glyphosate products, OEHHA should adopt a regulation for glyphosate-based herbicides that parallels the longstanding regulation for prescription drugs. This solution would provide far more useful information to consumers and adequately ensure the safe use of glyphosate-based products. 

Read the full comments signed by CropLife America and RISE.