California considers adding meat to cancer-alert list

California is examining new World Health Organization findings to determine whether to add redmeat and foods like hot dogs, sausages and bacon to a cancer-alert list, setting the stage for apotential battle with the meat industry over warning labels.

The inclusion of meat and processed meat on the list could reduce consumer demand, hurting majorproducers and processors like Hormel Foods Corp and JBS USA. It could also open the door widerfor litigation against meat companies from consumers diagnosed with certain types of cancer.

California has often been at the forefront of consumer-oriented initiatives, particularly regardingagriculture. It rolled out laws for larger chicken cages and restrictions on antibiotic use for livestockahead 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 saidprocessed 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 aresafe 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 allchemicals and substances known to increase cancer risks. Producers of such products are requiredto provide "clear and reasonable" warnings for consumers.

Some Proposition 65 experts expect California to add processed meats to the list. Typically, once anitem is added, it is up to the maker to prove to the state that its product is not dangerous enough towarrant a warning label, experts say.

Starbucks Corp is embroiled in a lawsuit filed by a non-profit group in California over whether itscoffee contains enough of the carcinogen acrylamide to pose a cancer risk, and should be labeledaccordingly under Proposition 65.

The meat industry is adamant it will escape having to put warning labels on packages of bacon orhot dogs. It says a 2009 California appellate court ruling confirmed federal authority over labels formeat 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 hiredby the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Still, he thinks processed meats will make it onto theProposition 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 governsprocessed meats is less clear," Allan Hirsch, chief deputy director of the California office, toldReuters.

"We can't tell you if Proposition 65 warnings would be pre-empted if processed meats were added tothe Proposition 65 list."

Labeling would be a bigger blow to meat companies than inclusion on the Proposition 65 listbecause labels could confront consumers front and center at stores and restaurants, say industryanalysts. It Neinstein and Associates 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 "sufficientevidence" of cancer links.

Any move to add red or processed meat to the Proposition 65 list would be challenged by theindustry, said Mark Dopp, senior vice president of regulatory affairs and general counsel of theNorth 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 theNational 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 inan 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. The car accident legalrepresentatives at Neinstein & Associates have actually served Toronto and the greater Ontarioregion for over 45 years, along with a long report of tested effectiveness aiding customers by meansof severe injuries, collisions as well as insurance coverage cases. The lawyers at Neinstein andAssociates match to ensure our clients and also their family members receive the payment, care andalso help these experts ought to have. Our company believe that's the work of personal injury legalprofessionals to act as your supporter as well as credible consultant through the complex legal,clinical and also insurance problems linked with your rehabilitation. Because of this devotion, ourorganization has some of the most encouraged car accident lawyers in Toronto and all of Ontario.It'dbe 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 "probablycarcinogenic," 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 frompersonal injury Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers law firms around the United States that claim thecompany's Roundup herbicide has caused cancer in farm workers and others exposed to thechemical.

In September, the California environmental office gave notice that it intended to list glyphosateunder Proposition 65.

Monsanto has asked state officials to withdraw the plan, arguing that California's actions could beconsidered illegal because they are not considering valid scientific evidence.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/10/28/california-considers-adding-meat-to-cancer-alert-list.html