Many U.S. farm organizations this week welcomed a federal judge’s decision not to require a cancer warning on glyphosate in California.

State Proposition 65 requires warning labels for products containing chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.

Glyphosate, known by the trade name Roundup, has been used as an herbicide for 40 years to rid farm fields of weeds. More recently, it has also been used in conjunction with a handful of genetically modified “Roundup Ready” crops that are resistant to it. This allows farmers to kill weeds without killing the crops.

The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in 2017 added glyphosate to its list of chemicals “known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

U.S. District Judge William Shubb this week granted summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against the warning requirement of Proposition 65 on glyphosate.

Shubb in 2018 made a preliminary ruling preventing California from enforcing its glyphosate labeling requirement, and this week’s ruling “cemented” that decision, according to the National Association of Wheat Growers.

NAWG was the lead plaintiff on the case against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The plaintiffs argued the warning requirement, as applied to glyphosate, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that California ignored facts and scientific findings from “hundreds” of studies and conclusions by the Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health and regulatory agencies around the world that glyphosate is safe to use.

They also argued that California’s listing of glyphosate is based on “flawed data” from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, that is used against U.S. products entering Europe.

“Glyphosate is a big part of a lot of wheat farmers’ operations,” Dave Milligan, NAWG president and a Cass City, Mich., wheat farmer, told the Capital Press. “Certainly it’s a big factor in helping to build soil health and sustainability.”

“It is inherently misleading for a warning to state that a chemical is known to the state of California to cause cancer based on the finding of one organization when apparently all other regulatory and governmental bodies have found the opposite,” Shubb wrote in 2018.

In his latest ruling, Shubb said his conclusion had not changed.

NAWG and other plaintiffs would likely face a “credible threat of enforcement” and be subject to lawsuits, Shubb said, even if products contained glyphosate well below the “no significant risk” level.

Milligan praised the judge for making a ruling based on science, calling the proposition “an over-reaching issue.”

Milligan expects Shubb’s ruling to be appealed.

“I certainly hope that sound science again will prevail,” he said.

Other plaintiffs include the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, the Agricultural Retailers Association, Associated Industries of Missouri, Iowa Soybean Association, Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, CropLife America, Missouri Farm Bureau, Monsanto Co., National Corn Growers Association, North Dakota Grain Growers Association, South Dakota Agri-Business Association and United States Durum Growers Association.