(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. Businesses, the law notes, are required to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before exposing anyone to a listed substance. And it’s no surprise: the science has been clear that these meats are bad for people, not to mention for wildlife and the planet.” 
 
 Prop 65, passed in 1986, requires California to create a state list of all chemicals and substances identified by WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer as "carcinogenic to humans," the most dangerous level, which processed meats fall under; "probably carcinogenic to humans ... with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals," the second-most dangerous level, which red meat falls under; and "possibly carcinogenic to humans ... with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals." “Now, California must follow suit with public health warnings on the label.
– Roughly three decades ago, California's Proposition 65 came into being, and it's a proposition likely on the minds of many a processed meat producer this week. That's because Prop 65 forces the state to add any item known to up one's cancer risk to a list; products containing a listed item in an amount over a certain threshold must carry a "clear and reasonable warning." Should the state add processed meat to the list in the wake of the WHO report that found such meats can cause colorectal cancer, required labeling could follow. It isn't clear what sort of warnings would be required. The law states a suitable warning can include a note on packaging or a sign where a product is sold, for instance, per the Huffington Post. But even if meat makes the list, "meats will never have to be labeled in the state of California," a consultant with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association tells Reuters. He argues a 2009 court ruling confirmed the federal government has control over labels for meat from plants inspected by the US Department of Agriculture. He adds California could attempt to overturn that ruling, but the North American Meat Institute "would wave the court of appeals decision. It'd be a stupid suit to even try to initiate because it's already been decided." Reuters clarifies that "f ederal law pre-empts warnings on fresh meat." How the law applies to processed meat "is less clear," per the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment . (The meat industry isn't buying the WHO report.)