The Fifth Appellate District affirmed a judgment from a trial court holding that Prop 65’s definition of hazardous chemicals as including substances identified as such by IARC, an agency of the United Nations does not constitute an improper delegation of authority.

On method for listing chemicals on the Prop 65 list is whether it is listed as human or animal carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization and headquartered in France.

Monsanto Company and others filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging ยง6382(b)(1), arguing it is improper for a foreign entity, unaccountable to the citizens of California, to determine what chemicals are known to the state to cause cancer.

The court of appeal held that the procedures by which such listing determinations are made are simply the working details of how to implement the Prop 65’s broader policy of notification and warning with respect to carcinogenic compounds. The listing mechanisms themselves are not the fundamental policy decisions underlying the legislation.