By Greg Van Dyke

Since a lot of the headlines we read each day are focused on what’s happening in Silicon Valley and what lies ahead for California’s technology companies, it becomes easy to forget just how import- ant agriculture is to California’s state economy. Agriculture in California is nearly a $50 billion industry, and the food we produce here is vital to consumers both within and beyond our state.

Because of this, the California state government needs to make sure it is taking any action possible to protect the hardworking farmers and agriculture experts whose livelihoods depend on the success of the industry. If their work is threatened, it could be disastrous for the millions who rely on the goods they produce every year.

Unfortunately, the government seems to be doing exactly the opposite. We’ve allowed products that those of us in the agricultural industry rely on for our work to fall under the purview of the now infamous Proposition 65. They not only place a heavy regulatory cost on us, they open us to countless lawsuits that threaten our jobs.

Take, for example, glyphosate. Glyphosate is an herbicide that farmers have used for ages to keep crops safe so that consumer demand can be met and the agricultural industry can thrive. It is a safe chemical that makes the industry more efficient and helps it meet the needs of people across the country. However, efforts are underway classify it as a cancer risk under Prop. 65.

This is dangerous for a number of reasons. The first is that it flies in the face of federal government standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment has said the same. Requiring farmers to all of a sudden put cancer warnings on otherwise safe products would essentially be forcing them to mislabel their own goods and mislead consumers. It puts an unfair burden on the agricultural industry while hurting consumers in the process.

The other reason this is dangerous is because it would open California farmers to a new wave of lawsuits for just about everything they produce. Since glyphosate is so common in agriculture, it means an almost innumerable number of products would now be required to come with a cancer warning. If one isn’t properly labeled, and glyphosate was used in the farming process, then lawyers would use that as grounds to go after small family farms that simply cannot afford the immense legal bills that come with fighting Prop. 65 claims.

Listing glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical under Prop. 65 would, simply put, be detrimental to one of California’s most important industries. Forcing farmers to mislabel their own products under the threat of lawsuits would threaten jobs across the industry and in turn hurt one of the core parts of the state economy. It is something that California afford.

Now, it’s time for our lawmakers to step in. Prop. 65 is long overdue for a fix, and this would be the perfect place to start. By protecting glyphosate from a Prop. 65 listing, the California Legislature would be saving the jobs of thousands of farmers across the state and would also make it clear that it is finally dedicated to fixing one of the biggest legal problems facing California.

Moving forward, it is absolutely essential that we ensure those who hold office recognize the importance of agriculture to citizens around the state. The jobs the industry provides and the goods it produces are essential to the state economy, and we cannot allow it to be blindsided by frivolous and expensive lawsuits.

Greg Van Dyke is the owner of VA farms and the President of the Rice Growers Association of California.