Queensland sugarcane farmers – among the biggest polluters of the Great Barrier Reef catchment – have labelled the scientific consensus about the natural wonder as “unsubstantiated scaremongering”.

Their peak organisation, Canegrowers, says it is attempting to bring “balance” to scientific debate about the reef by hosting and promoting two lectures next month by the controversial academic Peter Ridd.

Great Barrier Reef authority urges 'fastest possible action' on emissions Read more

Ridd argues that polluted runoff from agriculture – containing pesticides, fertiliser and soil sediment – is not seriously damaging the reef. His views are contrary to the scientific consensus statement produced in 2017 by 11 leading reef scientists and reviewed by an independent expert panel.

“The reef is actually in great order,” he said on his Facebook page. “So are farmers really killing the Great Barrier Reef through run-off of pesticides and fertilisers, and mud in flood periods? No.”

In a statement promoting Ridd’s lecture in Bundaberg, the local district representative for Canegrowers, Allan Dingle, said the event would “set the record straight”.

“Cane farmers are being pushed to the wall by over-regulation based on unsubstantiated scaremongering around the Great Barrier Reef,” Dingle said.

“It is time for politicians and vested interests to stop demonising agriculture. This situation is shaping up to be Adani 2.0 for the state Labor government.”

Canegrowers was among several agricultural groups upset at the state government’s implementation of reef protection regulations, which impose new standards on farmers.

The regulations include set “load limits” on the amounts of sediment and inorganic nitrogen from agricultural chemicals that can be allowed to run off into reef catchments.

The industry last month proudly called attention to “the collaborative relationship between sugarcane growers and scientists working together for improved water quality on the Great Barrier Reef”.

The chief executive of Canegrowers, Dan Galligan, told Guardian Australia the organisation’s attitude had not changed and it still promoted environmentally sustainable practices.

But Galligan said the state’s reef regulations had “dampened the confidence of growers [in circumstances] where we’ve spent five years to build them up to be conscious [about reef water quality]. The regulations have set us back in that sense.

“The government is making policy and regulations and telling us it’s because of the science. At the moment, the way a lot of the communication happens is by politicians telling farmers they’re going to be regulated, and they’re going to be regulated because of science. We’ve got to open it up for debate.”

• Sign up to receive the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

When asked whether farmers might not understand that Ridd’s views are broadly rejected by the scientific community, Galligan said: “It hasn’t worked to tell people that if you’ve got a contrary view, you’re an idiot. It’s trying to provide that balance … making sure we have an open conversation about it. We’d do it for other scientists, too.”

Imogen Zethoven, the Great Barrier Reef campaign director for the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said it was irresponsible to present Ridd’s work as if it were one of two competing views.

“It is problematic,” Zethoven said. “It’s a classic tactic to delay action to address a problem by casting doubt on the science.

“They need to accept the overwhelming consensus of the Great Barrier Reef that the greatest threat to water quality on the [reef] is pollution from agriculture. So many reports have come out saying that we need regulatory reform. For years voluntary measures have not produced the speed of change that’s needed.

“There is no debate about the science, it’s overwhelming.”