Revisions to regs may be good news for purveyors of almonds, cookies and potato products, among other acrylamide-containing foods targeted by Proposition 65 plaintiffs.
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment...more
A California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s finding that Monsanto had the strict liability duty to warn of potential risks and side effects of its Roundup herbicides.
It further affirmed that FIFRA does not...more
A California Court has granted a permanent injunction on enforcement of cancer warnings for glyphosate pursuant to Proposition 65, on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment.
The Court reviewed the constitutionality...more
Ninth Circuit considers whether federal law takes precedence over California statute requiring warnings about chemicals.
Hardeman v. Monsanto, pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, raises issues as to whether a...more
6/12/2020
/ Amicus Briefs ,
California ,
Cancer ,
Chemicals ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
FIFRA ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Manufacturers ,
Monsanto ,
Pesticides ,
Popular ,
Proposition 65 ,
Retailers ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Warning Labels
The California Supreme Court held there is no statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial in actions brought under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL). Its reasoning and basis likely...more