Local farmers have argued there is a lack of evidence that a popular weedkiller is connected with causing cancer, in the wake of a US couple's $2.9 billion payout.
An Oakland jury delivered the third loss in California, since August, to the agribusiness giant Monsanto's popular weedkiller Roundup.
CSU Professor of Agriculture Jim Pratley previously told The Daily Advertiser in August that the court case was based on a lack of evidence and said he stands by his arguments.
"I just cannot believe the numbers; the world has gone mad," Professor Pratley said.
"I don't think anyone in agriculture would think Roundup as any less safe but it is a reminder that any chemical has the potential to be dangerous.
"Glyphosate, in my experience and all the evidence shows, is a very safe chemical, but if you use it badly then I guess there are consequences."
Professor Pratley said farmers have been using glyphosate for nearly 50 years and there has been no cancer epidemics.
"Numerous studies have been inconclusive to finding cancer and there is no evidence to support these outlandish findings," he said.
"If Roundup was lost, it would mean that we would be using more chemicals that are less safe and this is not progress."
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.
Similarly, local farmer Stuart Kanaley said people should not focus on a decision that was not evidence-based.
"We have to base decisions in agriculture and the world around us on sound, peer-reviewed, scientific research," Mr Kanaley said.
"In Australia, the APVMA assesses that research to decide which products are acceptable to use and they govern how we must use them safely.
"I will not place any weight on US civil court decisions where a lawyer only needs to place doubt into the minds of a six person jury committee, despite a wave of scientific evidence to the contrary."
Mr Kanaley said only those who do not understand the US court process would be wary of using glyphosate.
"Despite the flurry of media reporting on the cases, nothing changes the scientific evidence which tells us that it is quite safe to use," he said.
Wagga City Council admitted it uses a range of chemicals to control weeds such as glyphosate and unless guidelines change, council will continue to use under safety guidelines.
"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."
Cootamundra farmer Tony Hill argued if herbicides were that bad, farms all around the world would be dead.
"We would have had issues years ago and I think herbicides are generally pretty good, but it can become a problem when you mix it with other chemicals," he said.
Like Professor Pratley, NSW Farmers Wagga district branch chairman Alan Brown said since the court ruling, his opinion of Roundup has not changed.
"There is no identified cancer risk from glyphosate, but for some reason the Californian courts are making that appear to fly in the face of science and commonsense," Mr Brown said.
"It's just sheer, utter nonsense.
"It's had a widespread use for a very long time and there have been no adverse outcomes that have been scientifically proven or identified; how can you possibly say that glyphosate is the one that has caused the damage?"
Mr Brown argued the loss of Roundup would be detrimental to farmers and the agricultural industry.
"Roundup is a corner stone of agriculture and horticulture production and the alternatives are certainly much more unsafe for the user and not as beneficial for the entire system," he said.
"People need to be aware that the labels give clear instruction about wearing the correct protective clothing to handle the chemical, but it's obvious from my reading of the case that these instructions were not taken seriously.
"People should never allow their clothes to be soaked in chemicals and if you're using the chemical according to the label, then you won't get into that position.
"Roundup does have a poison schedule five, while it's low, it's still a scheduled poison and should be used accordingly," Mr Brown concluded.
Riverina agronomist Neil Durning said glyphosate is an important part of Australian farming.
"The public should understand that glyphosate has enabled farming in Australia to become far more environmentally sustainable by adopting direct drilling and stopping the over cultivation of our paddocks that saw farms blow away in dust storms and run away in erosion from 1950's to 1980's," Mr Durning said.
"I would estimate that if we ban glyphosate usage and return to the old ways then cropping in much of Australia would likely decrease by half and farmers and rural communities will be the ones to pay that price.
"A decision this big should be based on serious science from independent agencies and not the opinion of an individual jury or a yoga instructor on twitter."
Mr Durning said people should constantly challenge the long term safety of the food production systems.
"My kids are eating it too, but I don't think we should ban glyphosate in Australia until there is compelling scientific evidence from our government authorities that says glyphosate is carcinogenic," he said.
"If you disagree or are worried then there is always certified organic produce to buy instead."
The Daily Advertiser contacted the APVMA about whether the US case has had any impact on their assessment or whether they are looking to update it, but they did not respond to requests.