(Reuters) — California is examining new World Health Organization findings to determine whether to add red meat and foods like hot dogs, sausages and bacon to a cancer-alert list, setting the stage for a potential battle with the meat industry over warning labels.
The inclusion of meat and processed meat on the list could reduce consumer demand, hurting major producers and processors like Hormel Foods Corp. and JBS USA. It could also open the door wider for litigation against meat companies from consumers diagnosed with certain types of cancer.
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
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 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, re-quires 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.
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 labelled in the state of California,” said Jim Coughlin, a consultant hired by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
But the situation on labelling processed meats is not known, according to the state agency assessing the WHO findings, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Federal law preempts warnings on fresh meat, but “our understanding of how federal law governs processed meats is less clear,” said Allan Hirsch, chief deputy director of the California office.
“We can’t tell you if Proposition 65 warnings would be preempted if processed meats were added to the Proposition 65 list.”
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.
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.
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.
Red meat is less likely than processed meat to be added to the list because it was classified as “probably carcinogenic.”
