When farmers unite to defend U.S. agriculture, we all win.
Farmers are the backbone of America. Values like responsibility, honesty, and hard work drive everything they do. But California regulations have endangered the livelihood of growers all over America. Agriculture is under siege and that drives up costs for everyone. Now, growers are standing up for what is right and taking action to Fix Prop 65.
Get the Facts
READ ON
Standing our ground.
A national alliance of farmers and agricultural networks has come together to challenge California’s unjustified Prop 65 listing of glyphosate, one of modern agriculture’s most valuable tools and an industry standard across the world. Additionally, 11 state attorneys general have also filed briefs joining the cause to protect agriculture in their states. Look, farming is really hard in today’s economy and this wrong threatens to make it even harder. Now growers are standing up and fighting back.
We’re taking California to court.
“The unified voice of this diverse coalition of agriculture and business groups illustrates the devastating impact California’s flawed action would have across the country. California’s erroneous warning about glyphosate is unconstitutional and would result in higher food costs, crushing blows to state and agricultural economies and lost revenue up and down the entire supply chain.”
Gordon Stoner
FORMER President of the National Association of Wheat Growers
Protecting the future of farming.
Farmers work tirelessly to put food on America’s tables, and glyphosate is a vital tool that they have trusted for decades. Every regulatory body in the world that has reviewed glyphosate has found it safe for use. Yet one French organization with a dubious record published a different and invalid opinion and California has sided with them, adding glyphosate to the state’s Prop 65 list. Standing up to this unprecedented legal attack, growers are determined to protect how America farms. And the consumers who depend on it.
READ ON
Why We Need to Fix the Wrongs of Prop 65
Higher operating costs threaten farmers’ way of life and ability to feed America
Higher food costs hurt American consumers
Alternatives to glyphosate hurt the environment
READ ON
Glyphosate is Safe for Use
An industry standard, glyphosate is an essential, safe, and cost-effective tool for farmers who have used it for more than four decades and who depend on its continued use.
There is no alternative that has the same or comparable effectiveness, price point, and environmental/safety profile as glyphosate.
It is approved and regulated by U.S. regulatory agencies for application in over 250 agricultural crops throughout the United States.
Press Releases
JUNE 13, 2018
Federal Judge Rules Against California’s Attorney General in Prop 65 Case
It’s a legal action to prevent an action before a case is decided. It restrains someone from moving forward with a course of action before the court determines the merits of a legal case. In this instance, the Alliance is trying to prevent California from enforcing the Prop 65 labeling requirement while the case is being decided.
What is the immediate and irreparable harm Prop 65 can cause U.S. agriculture?
The overwhelming majority of farmers use glyphosate and requiring a misleading and false label will fundamentally change the way farming is done in America. The plaintiffs in the case have filed extensive declarations outlining the irreparable harm this would cause.
Prop 65 would falsely disparage ag products, causing reputational damage and placing American agriculture at a competitive disadvantage. It would threaten the agriculture supply chain by forcing farmers to stop using their preferred method of agriculture production, which is already regulated by the federal government to ensure consumer safety.
And it would violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedoms by forcing them to falsely label their products. Legal precedent makes clear that the loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.
What are some specific examples of how farmers would be immediately injured by Prop 65?
1. Harming the reputation of agricultural products, crops and farming operations.
2. Increasing costs of farming practices, costs passed on to the consumer
3. Forcing the use of alternatives to glyphosate that are less effective, more labor intensive, more expensive, and bad for the environment.
4. Misinforming consumers and food producers. ·Demanding unrealistic new infrastructure and different packaging to segregate crops treated with glyphosate.
5. Placing farmers at a competitive disadvantage.
6. Imposing high risk for expensive litigation.
Who is part of this agriculture coalition?
A broad cross section of the agricultural community including:
National Association of Wheat Growers (lead plaintiff), Agribusiness Association of Iowa ·Associated Industries of Missouri, Iowa Soybean Association, Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Missouri Farm Bureau, National Corn Growers Association, North Dakota Grain Growers Association, South Dakota Agri-Business Association, United States Durum Growers Association, Agricultural Retailers Association, CropLife America
What law firm is handling this litigation?
The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at Latham Watkins,Husch Blackwell, and other firms.