Because none of the proposed glyphosate Prop 65 warnings are narrowly drawn to advancing California’s interest in protecting consumers from carcinogens, and California has less burdensome ways to convey its message than to compel Plaintiffs to convey it for them, the Prop 65 warning as applied to glyphosate is unconstitutional.” See also ALWR-Sept. The court stated, “Considering the current vigorous debate surrounding the scientific validity of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, forcing Plaintiffs to convey that message cannot be said to be an uncontroversial proposition. The court found that Proposition 65’s glyphosate warning requirement did not fall within the exceptions for compelled commercial speech under the First Amendment because the warning was “controversial” due to “a robust disagreement by reputable scientific sources” regarding the safety of glyphosate.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released an opinion holding California’s Proposition 65 carcinogen warning requirement for the herbicide glyphosate violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Pesticides/Herbicides: Circuit Court Rules California’s Glyphosate Warning Requirement Violates First Amendment

Bay 101 open 2017