California Court Ruling Endangers Public Health by Failing to Require Processed Meat on Prop 65 List of Carcinogens

SACRAMENTO—In a major blow to public health, the Superior Court of California has ruled that the State of California may ignore the dangers of processed meat, a product that the World Health Organization has classified as “‘carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 1) on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer.”

The surprising ruling comes five years after the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine—a nonprofit with more than 69,000 members in California—sued the state for failing to include processed meat on its published list of substances known to cause cancer, as required by Proposition 65. Under that law, the state’s list of carcinogens must include all substances categorized in Group 1, the highest evidence classification, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization.

In 2015, IARC announced this categorization for processed meat—such as hot dogs, bacon, and deli meat—after 22 experts from 10 countries assessed more than 800 epidemiological studies. The experts highlighted a meta-analysis that concluded that each 50-gram portion of processed meat (about one hot dog) eaten daily increases the relative risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. Research shows that eating 50 grams of processed meat daily also increases the relative risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and overall cancer mortality.

The court found the Physicians Committee “correct that Proposition 65 requires OEHHA to include on the Proposition 65 list substances that meet the criteria for listing under the Labor Code mechanism.” But the judge nevertheless concluded that “the definition of ‘processed meat’ in IARC’s monograph”—a scientific report spanning more than 500 pages—“fails to meaningfully inform what substances are included within that term.” The state public health agency that administers the law had advanced this argument after meeting with livestock and meat lobbyists.

Colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in California. The American Cancer Society estimates that California will have 16,050 new cases of colorectal cancer in 2025 and 5,450 deaths from the disease.

Since the IARC monograph was released in 2015 and the lawsuit was filed in 2020, new research continues to show that processed meat increases colorectal cancer risk.

Of particular concern is the dramatic rise in colorectal cancer among younger people. A study published in Nutrition and Cancer last year found that those under the age of 50 years who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer were more likely to consume higher amounts of processed meat and lower amounts of fruit and vegetables compared with those diagnosed over the age of 50 years.

The National Cancer Institute says, “There’s mounting evidence linking an unhealthy diet—in particular, one high in processed meat and fat, and low in fruits and vegetables—to early-onset colorectal cancer.”

According to “Cancer Statistics 2024: All Hands on Deck,” a report from the American Cancer Society, colorectal cancer was the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in the 1990s and has risen to the leading and second-leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively, aged 40-49. Colorectal cancer has also moved up to the leading cause of cancer death in men aged 20-39 years and the third-leading cause in women in the same age group.

“Tens of thousands of Californians are diagnosed with or die from colorectal cancer every year,” says Anna Herby, DHSc, RD, CDE, nutrition education specialist for the Physicians Committee. “California must commit to making sure that every resident knows that processed meat increases cancer risk, and Proposition 65 is the place to make that clear.”

“California has been violating the law for a decade by failing to add processed meat to the Proposition 65 list,” says Mark Kennedy, Esq., senior vice president of legal affairs for the Physicians Committee. “The court’s ruling leaves Californians at continued risk, so we will promptly appeal.”