|
 California has often been at the forefront of consumer-oriented
initiatives, particularly regarding agriculture. It rolled out laws
for larger chicken cages and restrictions on antibiotic use for
livestock ahead of much of the rest of the country.
Now the meat industry is focused on what the state will do after a
unit of the WHO on Monday said processed meat can cause colorectal
cancer in humans. It said the risk of developing cancer is small,
but increases with the amount of meat consumed. The meat industry
maintains that its products are safe to eat as part of a balanced
diet.
California's Proposition 65, an initiative approved in 1986,
requires that the state keep a list of all chemicals and substances
known to increase cancer risks. Producers of such products are
required to provide "clear and reasonable" warnings for consumers.
Some Proposition 65 experts expect California to add processed meats
to the list. Typically, once an item is added, it is up to the maker
to prove to the state that its product is not dangerous enough to
warrant a warning label, experts say.
Starbucks Corp is embroiled in a lawsuit filed by a non-profit group
in California over whether its coffee contains enough of the
carcinogen acrylamide to pose a cancer risk, and should be labeled
accordingly under Proposition 65.
The meat industry is adamant it will escape having to put warning
labels on packages of bacon or hot dogs. It says a 2009 California
appellate court ruling confirmed federal authority over labels for
meat from plants inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"Meats will never have to be labeled in the state of California,"
said Jim Coughlin, a consultant hired by the National Cattlemen's
Beef Association. Still, he thinks processed meats will make it onto
the Proposition 65 list.
The situation on labeling processed meats is not known, according to
the state agency assessing the WHO findings, the California Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Federal law pre-empts warnings on fresh meat, but "our understanding
of how federal law governs processed meats is less clear," Allan
Hirsch, chief deputy director of the California office, told
Reuters.
"We can't tell you if Proposition 65 warnings would be pre-empted if
processed meats were added to the Proposition 65 list."
Labeling would be a bigger blow to meat companies than inclusion on
the Proposition 65 list because labels could confront consumers
front and center at stores and restaurants, say industry analysts.
It is not known exactly what warnings might say.
The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer put processed
meats in its "group one" category, along with tobacco and asbestos,
products for which the agency says there is "sufficient evidence" of
cancer links.
[to top of second column] |
Any move to add red or processed meat to the Proposition 65 list
would be challenged by the industry, said Mark Dopp, senior vice
president of regulatory affairs and general counsel of the North
American Meat Institute (NAMI).
The institute represents companies including Cargill Inc, Tyson
Foods Inc and Kraft Heinz Co.
"The state can't force a label on federally inspected product," said
Janet Riley, president of the National Hot Dog & Sausage Council and
a NAMI senior vice president.
But a legal fight could follow. Private lawyers, or even the state
of California, could file lawsuits in an attempt to overturn the
2009 ruling and force meat companies to apply labels, Coughlin said.
If that happens, NAMI "would wave the court of appeals decision.
It'd be a stupid suit to even try to initiate because it's already
been decided," he said.
Red meat is less likely to be added to California's list because it
was classified as "probably carcinogenic," Coughlin said. That put
it in the WHO unit's "group 2A" category, joining glyphosate, the
active ingredient in many weedkillers, made by Monsanto Co.
Since the WHO's classification of glyphosate in March, Monsanto has
faced a slew of lawsuits from personal injury law firms around the
United States that claim the company's Roundup herbicide has caused
cancer in farm workers and others exposed to the chemical.
In September, the California environmental office gave notice that
it intended to list glyphosate under Proposition 65.
Monsanto has asked state officials to withdraw the plan, arguing
that California's actions could be considered illegal because they
are not considering valid scientific evidence.
(Reporting by Tom Polansek and P.J. Huffstutter in Chicago; Editing
by Leslie Adler)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
