The future of the country’s most common weedkiller, which contains glyphosate, has been pushed into the spotlight by a multi-million dollar payout to a US groundskeeper who claims the product has given him cancer. 

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority in 2016 reviewed the potential risks associated with glyphosate use and confirmed that it is safe to use. 

Professor of agriculture Jim Pratley, strongly opposed the court case ruling and argued it is based on a lack of evidence. 

“Wagga should absolutely not steer away from the product Roundup,” Professor Pratley said. 

“Evidence suggests very clearly that there is no link that glyphosate causes cancer and you would think since we’ve used it since the 1970s, then this supposedly dangerous chemical would have caused a cancer epidemic.” 

“This is one of these fake news stories and someone making money out of a scare campaign.” 

Professor Pratley argued that without Roundup, farmers would be at a loss. 

“It’s a fundamental part in conservational farming activities and this is a big issue for agriculture worldwide,” he said. 

“This court case is just a way for someone to make millions of money and through no evidence, this is not something that should be taken seriously or into consideration.” 

NSW Farmers Wagga district branch chairman Alan Brown said every farmer uses Roundup.

”We have the most rigorous chemical distribution and the scientists have assured us that there are no problems with Roundup,” Mr Brown said. 

“It’s a vital part of agricultural and pastoral production; it’s an essential chemical, particularly for crop establishment. 

“Until the science-based APVMA says differently, glyphosate should continue to be used.” 

David Mailler, on the agricultural science committee chair, said glyphosate is an essential tool for farmers.

"Access to glyphosate is currently important in allowing farmers to carry out no-till agricultural practices, limiting soil disturbance and reducing the release of carbon from soil,” Mr Mailler said. 

"In the last week, we've seen a federal Brazilian judge ban the use of glyphosate, and a Californian jury ruled that a groundskeeper's cancer had been caused by Roundup. This is despite assurances from the regulatory bodies in those countries that deem the product as safe to use."

NSW Farmers and Industry is in regular contact with the APVMA on this and other issues, and is carefully watching international decisions on chemical safety. 

"NSW Farmers continues to support the availability and use of glyphosate, as per label instructions, as an important tool for farm production and productivity," Mr Mailler said.

"Regulatory bodies in Australia, New Zealand, the US, the EU and Canada have all concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to cause cancer in humans.”

Mr Brown said the only other alternative for resistance management is a “horrible” spray weed. 

“This is very dangerous for the user and compared to Roundup being very low toxicity, spray weed has very high toxicity,” he said. 

“It is kept available as an alternative to Roundup, but it certainly could never replace it."

Professor Platley agreed with Mr Brown and said the alternative products are not as safe as Roundup. 

“What doesn’t seem to be taken into account is a study in the U.S, which looked at 45,000 farmers over a decade to see whether they could find all the glyphosate users and no associations were found to cause an incidence of cancer,” he said. 

Wagga council admitted it uses a range of chemicals to control weeds, including glyphosate and there are no signs that council will limit its Roundup use. 

“All chemicals are used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and council’s work health and safety guidelines,” said Mark Gardiner, the environment and city compliance manager. 

“The APVMA have reviewed the potential risks associated with glyphosate use and have confirmed that APVMA approved products containing glyphosate can continue to be used safely according to label directions.”