Paraquat Phase-Out in California

August 19th, 2026

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced on Aug. 10, 2026, that all manufacturers of pesticide products containing paraquat-dichloride (commonly known as the herbicide paraquat) have voluntarily cancelled their product registrations in California, initiating a phase-out of paraquat use in the state.

DPR began a formal reevaluation of paraquat in November 2024, and manufacturers began voluntarily cancelling product registrations in April 2026, with the final registrant withdrawing its registration on Aug. 6, 2026.

In California, DPR-licensed distributors may continue to possess and sell voluntarily cancelled paraquat products for up to two years following each product’s effective cancellation date. Growers may continue to use existing products during this period, provided all label requirements and applicable state and federal regulations are followed.

For more information, read the DPR press release here: https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/2026/08/10/dpr-announces-voluntary-cancellation-of-all-pesticide-products-containing-paraquat-dichloride/

This development highlights the importance of continued investment in innovation, research and developing effective pest management solutions that meet the needs of this evolving landscape.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

The Unintended Consequences of Food Fear

August 19th, 2026

There is an important national conversation happening about food choices, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the long-term consequences of unhealthy diets. There is a strange contradiction however, in how we think and communicate about food risk. 

Tell consumers that a fresh fruit or vegetable might present a food safety risk—Salmonella, E. coli O157, Cyclospora—and many are remarkably quick to stop eating it. Sometimes they avoid an entire category of produce, even when the actual risk is extremely limited and that context is included somewhere in the message, if not the headline. 

But consumers still must eat. 

And too often, concern about fresh produce becomes permission to choose less healthy or highly processed foods instead – as though this represents “risk management.” That happens despite a well-established understanding of the short- and long-term health concerns associated with diets dominated by these foods. 

Why? 

Part of it is psychology. A foodborne illness outbreak is immediate and vivid. There is a pathogen, a recall and alarming headlines. The satisfaction from eating junk food can also be immediate. The health consequences of poor dietary choices, by contrast, tend to accumulate quietly over years and are much easier to ignore. 

There may be a less comfortable explanation too – people often like these foods (think guilty pleasures), and we are remarkably good at embracing information that validates a choice we already wanted to make. This is especially true when that choice might otherwise make us feel guilty. 

If fruits and vegetables suddenly sound risky, people do not stop eating. They substitute something else, and that substitute is not always another fruit or vegetable. 

“See? Fresh food isn’t safe either – I will eat the (fill in the blank on guilty food choice) instead.” 

I hear that more and more these days as people rationalize their consumption choices. The problem is that the existence of a potential risk in one food does not mean the risks in the alternative are less. 

There is no zero-risk food. Fresh produce can carry some limited food safety risk. So can almost any other food. And some of those alternatives carry additional short- and long-term health risks. 

What matters in food choice is magnitude, probability and perspective. Ultimately, it comes down to whether the food replacing one with a perceived risk represents a truly lower overall risk to the consumer. That is the part of the conversation we rarely hear enough about – the risk of the alternative choice. 

This matters as we intensify debates around UPFs, food dyes, contaminants, etc. in the broader food system. We cannot encourage people to eat more whole foods (including fresh produce) while communicating about risks associated with fresh foods in ways that make them seem uniquely dangerous. Or, more importantly, more dangerous than the food alternatives. 

Provide perspective. Don’t pretend any food is risk-free. 

Fresh produce can on (relatively) rare occasion be the vehicle for serious foodborne illness, and the industry continues to work on these complex agricultural challenges in order to make it safer. 

Eating fruit and vegetables remains one of the healthiest dietary choices we can encourage. 

Fresh produce can carry some very limited risk and still be the healthier and less risky choice.  

Both Can Be True. Nuance Matters. 

If we are going to have a serious conversation about UPFs and other overall food-related risks, we also need a better conversation about relative risk. Otherwise, in trying to protect people from what might make them sick today, we may inadvertently encourage them to eat more of what we already know is not helping them stay healthy tomorrow. 

Tags: ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

A Food Safety NTSB? A Strong Idea – If We Follow Through 

August 19th, 2026

Independent outbreak investigations could improve accountability and public trust, but the model will fail without authority, deadlines, funding and transparent recommendation tracking. 

Foodborne outbreaks expose a structural weakness in the American food safety system: responsibility is distributed, but accountability is not. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) coordinates much of the epidemiology; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulate different foods; and state and local agencies perform essential interviews, testing and inspections. When an investigation is delayed, inconclusive or wrong, however, no single institution owns the failure to learn. 

Former FDA Deputy Commissioner Frank Yiannas has proposed an independent National Foodborne Outbreak Investigation Board modeled on the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). It would investigate across food categories, operate outside agency silos and political pressure, publish clear lessons and use modern data tools. Industry could contribute records and expertise, but the board would retain independence and final judgment. The concept deserves serious consideration. 

The NTSB analogy matters most after a finding is made. NTSB recommendations are advisory, but recipients are asked to respond within 90 days—30 for urgent recommendations—with completed or planned actions and a timetable. Open recommendations require milestone updates or at least annual reporting. NTSB reviews the evidence and publicly classifies the response as acceptable or unacceptable; regulators separately turn selected recommendations into enforceable requirements. Applied to food safety, that process, theoretically, could keep outbreak lessons from disappearing into agency files. 

The Case for an Independent Board 

The greatest advantage is independence. A board that does not also write and enforce food rules could ask whether regulators, companies, laboratories and public health agencies performed as they should. A unified investigation could cross the FDA-USDA boundary, examine failures in surveillance and traceback and distinguish immediate outbreak control from deeper root-cause analysis. Public reports and a permanent recommendation database could reduce premature attribution, show who accepted or rejected corrective action and give consumers and affected businesses a common factual record. 

The model could also improve prevention. Recommendations might address equipment design, sanitation, agricultural water, laboratory methods, traceability, recall execution, risk communication or interagency procedures. A 90-day response requirement would not force agreement, but it would force an accountable answer. FDA, USDA, CDC, states, manufacturers and operators could propose alternatives, while the board judged whether those alternatives achieved the safety objective. 

The Case Against a Simple Transplant 

Food outbreaks are not airplane crashes. There may be no preserved scene, identifiable moment or physical wreckage. Food is consumed or discarded; symptoms may appear days later; records can be incomplete; ingredients cross jurisdictions and borders; and many investigations never identify a vehicle. Creating another federal body could duplicate existing efforts, slow urgent decision-making or create institutional conflict over who leads while people are still becoming ill. 

Nonbinding recommendations are another limitation. Transparency can generate pressure, but it cannot replace enforcement. Equipment changes, new testing, training and traceability systems cost money. Who pays—the manufacturer, operator, grower, retailer, government or consumer—will depend on whether an action is voluntary, contractual or mandated by regulation. Without a regulator’s compliance deadline and inspection authority, a recommendation could remain open for years while the underlying hazard persists. This becomes even more complicated for outbreaks involving imported foods, where an independent board’s ability to investigate, provide transparency and pursue on-site follow-up may depend on foreign governments and actors beyond U.S. jurisdiction, especially if the board’s recommendations are nonbinding.  

Build the Follow-Through Before Building the Board 

Yiannas’s public proposal has not yet answered the decisive design questions. What case count, death, duration or public-interest threshold triggers an investigation? Does the board lead during the emergency or begin an independent after-action review? Can it compel records, samples, testimony and foreign-facility access? How will confidential business information, candid industry participation and victims’ legal rights be protected? Who funds investigations and corrective actions? Must agencies respond within 90 days, maintain annual updates and explain missed deadlines? What evidence is required before a recommendation is closed? 

Congress should pursue the idea, but conditionally. The board should have a narrow investigative and prevention mandate, not duplicate recall or enforcement functions. It should have statutory access to evidence, defined launch criteria, a public recommendation database, 90-day responses, annual updates and explicit classifications for acceptable and unacceptable action. Regulators should remain responsible for converting safety findings into enforceable rules and checking field compliance. Independence without follow-through would create reports. Independence with authority, clocks and public accountability could create learning.  As food safety leaders such as Frank Yiannis consistently remind us, if we continue to repeat our same fragmented approach to outbreak investigations, we can expect the same unsatisfactory public health outcomes absent the necessary progress in prevention to protect consumers in a rapidly changing global food supply. 

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

Western Growers Joins Acting Labor Secretary for New Mexico Farm Tours and Workforce Roundtable

August 18th, 2026

From left: Ed Ogaz, owner, Seco Spice; Acting U.S. Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling; and Western Growers President and CEO Dave Puglia.

Western Growers President and CEO Dave Puglia joined Acting U.S. Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling in New Mexico last week for farm tours and a roundtable discussion focused on agricultural workforce challenges and the need for H-2A reform.

In partnership with the National Milk Producers Federation, Western Growers helped host Secretary Sonderling at Seco Spice and Cervantes Industries, two leading chile growers and processors, as well as Big Sky Dairy. The tours provided an opportunity to showcase the journey of chiles from the field to finished products serving a majority of the U.S. chili spice and hot sauce markets.

Puglia and other agricultural leaders also participated in a roundtable with Secretary Sonderling, sharing firsthand perspectives on the workforce challenges facing farmers and the need for reforms to strengthen the agricultural labor system. The discussion included representatives from the pecan industry, which is also facing growing labor challenges.

Western Growers appreciates the opportunity to help showcase the people and businesses working every day to keep American agriculture strong and producing the food we rely on, and we’d like to thank the Department of Labor for making agriculture a part of the conversation.

Posted in News | No Comments »

Deadline Extended for 2026 Specialty Crop Multi-State Program Proposals

August 17th, 2026

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has extended the deadline for proposals for the 2026 Specialty Crop Multi-State Program (SCMP) to Oct. 16, 2026, at 1:59 p.m. PT.

The SCMP is a federal grant program administered by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service that supports collaborative, multi-state projects designed to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. Eligible projects may address issues including food safety, plant pests and diseases, research, crop-specific challenges and marketing and promotion.

Grant awards range from $250,000 to $1 million per project, with projects lasting up to three years. Eligible applicants include specialty crop producer associations and groups, state agencies, Tribal governments, universities, nonprofits and other stakeholder organizations.

Proposals must include at least two partners with substantive involvement in the project, with the partners located in two different states.

Proposals must be submitted electronically to [email protected] by the October 16 deadline.

For more information, including proposal templates, webinar information and application requirements, visit the CDFA Specialty Crop Multi-State Program website. Applicants are also encouraged to review the 2026 SCMP Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

California’s LWDA Revises Proposed PAGA Regulations

August 14th, 2026

The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) has issued a second round of proposed changes to its PAGA regulations, further clarifying key procedures and tightening compliance requirements. The latest revisions build on LWDA’s earlier proposal and address PAGA notices, employer cure opportunities, and filing practices. 

Notably, LWDA revised its rules for high-frequency and non-compliant filers. Under the modified proposal, a high-frequency filer would include an attorney who files 100 or more PAGA notices, or a law firm that files 200 or more notices, within the prior 12 months. These filers would face additional disclosure and certification requirements. The proposal also replaces the term “vexatious filer” with “non-compliant filer” and preserves LWDA’s ability to require prefiling screening for individuals who repeatedly submit deficient notices after receiving an Agency warning. 

The revised regulations also add detail to the administrative cure process for employers with fewer than 100 employees. Eligible employers would have 33 days after receiving a PAGA notice to submit a confidential cure proposal to LWDA. The proposal explains how employee count is determined and confirms that cure proposals are confidential settlement communications that generally may not be treated as admissions of liability. 

These updates build on the 2024 PAGA reforms and the regulations LWDA initially proposed earlier this year. As discussed, here, the proposed regulations could give employers clearer information at the start of a claim, more meaningful cure opportunities, and stronger safeguards against boilerplate or abusive PAGA filings. 

What Does it Mean?  

The proposed regulations are not yet in effect. LWDA is accepting comments on the latest modifications through August 18, 2026. 

Comments may be submitted by email to Danielle West, Rulemaking and Program Analyst, at [email protected]. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to Danielle West, Rulemaking and Program Analyst, Labor and Workforce Development Agency, 1416 Ninth Street (MIC-55), Sacramento, CA 95814. 

Western Growers will continue to monitor the rulemaking process and update members as developments occur. 

Tags: , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

USCIS Denials Highlight New Scrutiny of Form I-129 Signatures

August 14th, 2026

USCIS has begun denying some Form I-129 petitions based on concerns about the validity of the employer’s signature. In several recent cases, USCIS has noted that signatures appeared identical to those submitted with previous filings and concluded that the signatures had been electronically applied or copied rather than placed on the form by the authorized signatory. 

The denials follow a recent Department of Homeland Security interim final rule that expressly gives USCIS adjudicators discretion to reject or deny a benefit request when USCIS determines after accepting the filing that it does not contain a valid signature. A denial can be particularly costly because USCIS may retain the filing fee after fully adjudicating the petition. 

Importantly, USCIS continues to permit the filing of a photocopy, scan or other reproduction of a properly signed document. The critical distinction is that the reproduced signature must come from the actual form or document that was originally signed by hand. USCIS specifically identifies as invalid the practice of copying and pasting an image of a signature from one document onto another, using signature software, or applying a stamped signature. 

USCIS has acknowledged that these issues may not be detected until adjudication because an improperly copied signature can look much like a legitimate copy of a handwritten signature. Officers may compare signatures against prior filings when evaluating whether a signature is valid. 

During a recent NCAE H-2A Committee call, participants shared practical approaches they have used in response to the increased scrutiny. These are not requirements contained in the regulation, but employers may want to consider them as risk-reduction measures. 

Practices reported to be working include: 

  • Obtaining a new wet-ink signature for each Form I-129 petition 
  • Using a recently obtained signature, preferably less than 90 days old 
  • Varying the natural placement of the signature rather than repeatedly using an identical signature image 

Practices to avoid include: 

  • Reusing a signature taken from an earlier petition or other document 
  • Applying the same stored signature image to multiple petitions 
  • Relying on older stored signatures 
  • Using Adobe or other electronic signature software to place the signature on the form 
  • Using a signature stamp 

Employers should review their I-129 filing procedures now, particularly if petitions are prepared centrally and signatures have historically been stored and reused. The safest practice is for the authorized representative to actually sign each petition, after which the signed petition may be scanned or copied for filing consistent with USCIS policy. 

If USCIS denies an I-129 because of an invalid signature, the employer may file a new petition with a valid signature, although the employer may incur delays and pay the applicable filing fees again. 

For questions about Form I-129 signature requirements or about the H-2A program in general, please contact the Western Growers H-2A Services Team.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

USCIS Restores Authority to Deny Petitions Without Chance to Cure

August 14th, 2026

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued new guidance restoring officers’ discretion to deny immigration benefit requests, including H-2A petitions, without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when required initial evidence is missing. 

Under the prior policy, USCIS officers generally were directed to issue an RFE or NOID when a filing lacked required initial evidence or otherwise failed to establish eligibility. Effective August 5, 2026, USCIS has returned to a stricter approach. Officers may deny a petition outright when the required initial evidence has not been submitted, rather than giving the petitioner an opportunity to cure the deficiency through an RFE.  USCIS expressly states that the new guidance “restore[s] USCIS officers’ full discretion” to deny such filings without first issuing an RFE or NOID.  

For H-2A employers, the practical consequence is significant. An incomplete Form I-129 petition or a filing that omits required supporting documentation could be denied rather than returned for additional evidence. The employer may then have to prepare and file a new petition, pay another filing fee, and wait for USCIS to adjudicate the replacement filing. In the time-sensitive H-2A process, even a relatively short delay can jeopardize an employer’s ability to have workers arrive by the anticipated start date. 

The new policy is effective immediately and applies to benefit requests that were pending or filed on or after August 5, 2026.  H-2A employers should therefore take extra care to ensure that every USCIS filing is complete and includes all required initial evidence before submission. An RFE should no longer be viewed as a guaranteed opportunity to correct an incomplete petition.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

Western Growers Joins Supreme Court Brief in Sun Valley H-2A Case

August 14th, 2026

Western Growers has joined a coalition of national and state agricultural organizations in an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC. The National Council of Agricultural Employers organized the coalition, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation drafted the brief. 

The case arose after the U.S. Department of Labor assessed approximately $550,000 in back wages and civil penalties against Sun Valley Orchards, a family-owned New Jersey farm that participated in the H-2A program. The Department pursued the claims through its internal administrative tribunal rather than an independent federal court. 

The amicus brief argues that Congress did not authorize the Department of Labor to create its own tribunal for resolving H-2A enforcement disputes. According to the brief, the Department’s current process allows the agency to serve as rulemaker, prosecutor, judge and collector of penalties without the clear congressional authorization required for such a concentration of power. 

The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant consequences for agricultural employers nationwide. At stake is whether employers facing substantial federal penalties are entitled to have those claims heard by an independent judge and jury, and whether the Department’s H-2A enforcement system operates within statutory and constitutional limits. 

Western Growers joined the brief to support fair process, meaningful judicial review and the due process rights of agricultural employers participating in the H-2A program.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

You’re Invited: Angel Investing 101 for Western Growers Members

August 14th, 2026

Western Growers and Plug and Play invite interested Western Growers members to join a one-hour educational webinar on the basics of angel investing. The session will explain how early-stage startup investing works, what investors should understand before writing an individual check, how common startup financing instruments are structured and what legal and administrative steps are typically involved.

This session is designed for members who may encounter startup investment opportunities through AgSharks, Western Growers programming or their own industry networks and want a practical framework for evaluating those opportunities.

The webinar is educational only and is not a pitch event or recommendation to invest in any specific company.

EVENT DETAILS

Lunch and Learn: Angel Investing 101—Startup Investing for Western Grower Members

Date and Time: Wednesday, Sept. 9 from 12 p.m.–1 p.m. PST

Register here.

Registration Note: Please turn off any VPN before registering. If your VPN is enabled, the registration page may incorrectly indicate that the event has already occurred or has been canceled.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

USDA Extends Supplemental Disaster Relief Program Application Deadline to September 30

August 12th, 2026

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has extended the application deadline for the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) to Sept. 30, 2026, giving producers more time to apply for assistance for qualifying natural disaster losses in calendar years 2023 and 2024.

The extension applies to both Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the program. Stage 1 covers indemnified (e.g. insured) losses, while Stage 2 provides assistance for non-indemnified (e.g. shallow), uncovered and quality losses.

In addition to the application extension:

  • Applicants will now be allowed to use verifiable and reliable documentation to demonstrate quality-related discounts on production impacted by natural disasters. Verifiable documentation must be dated within 30 days of harvest.
  • FSA updated policy for crops with a final use different from the intended use (secondary use) and for crops not sold in a recognized market (salvage value). This is intended to address quality-related economic impacts for crops that were intended for fresh but sold as processed or could not be sold in a recognized market.
  • FSA clarified that for Stage 1 quality losses, some applications were not generated because the pre-quality adjusted production information used to calculate the Quality Loss Percentage was unavailable. Although this information will not be available before the September 30 deadline, impacted producers must still file by then; once FSA receives missing production data, they will be notified and provided with adequate time to review and re-sign their applications.

WG encourages all members who may be eligible to contact their local Farm Service Agency (FSA) county office for more information or assistance with an application.

For more information on SDRP, visit fsa.usda.gov/sdrp. To read the full press release from the Farm Service Agency, click here.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

FDA Finalizes Updated Food Safety Guidance for Ready-to-Eat Fresh-Cut Produce

August 12th, 2026

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released final guidance for manufacturers and processors of ready-to-eat fresh-cut produce, including recommendations for controlling biological food safety hazards and complying with the Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) rule. 

The guidance applies to fresh fruits and vegetables that have been physically altered from their whole state—such as chopped lettuce, sliced cantaloupe, diced onions and shredded carrots—and are distributed in fresh form. The final guidance reflects comments received on FDA’s 2018 draft and replaces the agency’s 2008 fresh-cut produce guidance. 

This guidance provides recommendations and examples to help fresh-cut processors implement applicable requirements under 21 CFR Part 117, including hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls. 

Click here to see the full constituent update.

Click here to see the final guidance.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

A Summer of AgTech Storytelling at the WGCIT

August 26th, 2026

This summer, Henry Cremers, a California Polytechnic State University student studying Agricultural Communications, brought together his passion for agriculture, storytelling, and digital media through an internship with the Western Growers Center for Innovation & Technology (WGCIT) in Salinas. As he winds down his summer at the WGCIT, we want to tell you about his summer at the WGCIT and everything he accomplished on behalf of our startups.

As a student preparing for a career at the intersection of agriculture and communications, Cremers was tasked with helping tell the stories of emerging agricultural technology companies working to address some of the industry’s most pressing challenges. Throughout the internship, he worked directly with agtech startup founders, producing professional multimedia content that highlighted innovation across the agricultural sector.

One of Cremers’ primary responsibilities was interviewing agtech entrepreneurs and company leaders. Over the course of the summer, he conducted interviews with more than a dozen startups housed within the Western Growers innovation ecosystem. These conversations provided valuable insight into technologies ranging from automation and robotics to sustainability and labor solutions, while also giving Cremers firsthand experience in professional interviewing and content development.

Beyond just conducting interviews, Cremers professionally documented these conversations. He captured extensive B-roll footage designed to showcase each company’s technology in action. The visual content helped bring complex agricultural innovations to life for growers, investors, and industry stakeholders.

After gathering footage in the field and at startup headquarters, Cremers managed the post-production process for each project. Using his background in digital media and creative software, he edited and produced a series of videos that highlighted the mission, technology, and impact of each startup. The finished videos were developed for social media distribution and industry outreach, creating engaging content that helped increase visibility for participating companies.

Cremers also played a key role in coordinating the publication of the content. He organized and scheduled the completed videos for weekly promotion, with supporting outreach efforts led by Walt Duflock and the WGCIT team. The consistent publishing schedule will help maintain engagement with audiences interested in the latest developments in agricultural innovation.

The internship was a natural extension of Cremers’ academic and professional experiences. At Cal Poly, he is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Communications with a minor in Law and Society, while building expertise in agricultural publications, digital communications, and media production. His previous work with the San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau included writing articles, producing digital media, and communicating the value of agriculture to community audiences.

Beyond communications, Cremers brings practical agricultural experience to his storytelling. As Organic Farm Production and Social Media Manager at Cal Poly Farm, he has worked across farm operations, operated heavy equipment, became familiar with organic compliance, and managed social media content. His agricultural background allowed him to better understand the technologies being developed by startups and communicate their value to growers and industry professionals.

The internship also leveraged many of his technical skills, including photography, videography, Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, Premiere Pro, and social media management. By combining these abilities with his understanding of agriculture, Cremers was able to produce authentic and engaging content that connected innovation with real-world farming applications.

Through his work at the WGCIT, Henry Cremers has hopefully gained valuable experience in agricultural communications, multimedia production, and startup engagement. The opportunity strengthened his professional skills and hopefully allowed him to add several agtech startup packages to his professional portfolio for the future. If you are interested in seeing the finished agtech videos, please follow Henry Cremers Media on YouTube.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

Without Data, All You Have Is an Opinion  

August 12th, 2026

“Without Data, All You Have Is an Opinion” – W. Edwards Deming 

There is a lot of discussion today (rightfully so) about food safety and public health. 

Food safety is a little like the safety features in your car. Most of us don’t spend much time thinking about them when everything is working as intended. But when they’re needed, or when they fail, the value of every investment in prevention, monitoring, technology and safeguards suddenly becomes very clear. 

During food safety events, the focus needs to remain where it belongs: on the people affected by foodborne illness, on supporting patients and their families and on preventing any further harm. But soon, the questions will come, and the most important one will be: What are we willing to do differently to make sure it doesn’t happen again? 

A wise mentor of mine, and my first boss out of grad school, once told me something about foodborne outbreaks that I’ve come to realize applies to almost anything in life: 

“You aren’t judged by what happens; you’re judged by how you handle it.” 

My mentor had experienced a large multistate outbreak firsthand, and while he is unfortunately no longer with us, his voice, and, more importantly, his integrity is still clearly heard and felt in moments like this. 

It leaves me thinking about a difficult question for myself and our collective food industry: How do we quickly turn the events of today into something useful for tomorrow? Not another report that sits on a shelf. Not another round of finger-pointing. Not another temporary surge of attention and investment that fades as soon as the immediate crisis passes. 

How do we learn from what happened, identify what the data could have told us sooner and build systems capable of acting on those signals before people become sick? 

Because Prevention Requires More Than Good Intentions. 

It requires data. It requires monitoring. It requires people willing to share information and ask difficult questions at all levels of the food supply chain. And, ultimately, it requires action. We have spent plenty of time talking about what could be done in food safety before this summer’s outbreaks, and certainly during them. Events like these remind us why the difference between could and did matters so much. 

From Reaction to a Data-Driven Food Safety System 

The path forward does not require a single solution. It requires a food safety system that is better connected through the whole supply chain, more transparent to all stakeholders (including consumers), and increasingly driven by the right type of food safety data, focusing on risk management over compliance and action rather than reaction. 

That means being able to rapidly trace a product when something goes wrong, while investing much more heavily in preventing contamination before it even happens. It means building agricultural water information that can identify emerging risks before they become outbreaks. It means using microbiological testing and surveillance efficiently to understand the residual risks that remain even when preventive systems are working as designed. And it means creating risk-based data systems, particularly for imported foods, that allow downstream stakeholders/customers/regulators to focus limited resources where the data tell us the risk and uncertainty are greatest. 

Five Complementary Pillars.  

Collaboration, Traceability, Prevention, Surveillance, Risk-Based Data Sharing. 

Together these pillars create something we have historically lacked – a more continuous and cohesive picture of risk across the fresh produce supply chain, and the ability to act on that information before an outbreak becomes the signal that something went wrong. 

The objective should not simply be more testing, more regulation or more data. The objective should be better information shared amongst all stakeholders, available sooner, used to make better decisions. When industry and government can see risk more clearly, prevention becomes more targeted, regulatory resources can be deployed more intelligently and interventions can happen earlier. 

Because ultimately, data only has value when we are willing to act on them. It’s time we do. 

A Comprehensive Framework for Fresh Produce Food Safety 

Fresh produce food safety should be built on five complementary pillars: collaboration across industry, rapid traceability to limit the impact of outbreaks, prevention systems that reduce contamination before it occurs, surveillance programs that measure whether preventive controls are working and risk-based data systems that continuously improve both domestic and imported food safety. Together, these elements create a food safety system that is science-based, prevention-focused, cohesive and designed to protect both consumers and the long-term resilience of the produce supply chain. 

Collaboration: Align Stakeholders to a Single Point of Effort and Expertise 

A patchwork of retailer and buyer requirements or certification systems that rely too heavily on checklist-based verification can sometimes impede food safety developments focused on risk-based management. When requirements proliferate independently across buyers/retailers, the intentions are good, but they can divert limited time and resources towards systems that demonstrate compliance better than advancing prevention. The fresh produce supply chain needs a single, open, authoritative point of collaboration that brings together growers, shippers, buyers, regulators, researchers, auditors and food safety subject-matter experts around shared science, validated practices, emerging risks and practical implementation tools.  

This effort should make the best available food safety knowledge accessible to everyone, not only the largest or best-resourced organizations, so that small and mid-sized growing operations can benefit from the same current expertise, data and risk-management guidance. A common transparent, fully accessible collaborative framework would not eliminate accountability or appropriate buyer standards; it would reduce unnecessary duplication, accelerate adoption of science-based practices, and create a clearer pathway for the entire supply chain to learn and improve together. 

Traceability: Protect Consumers and the Supply Chain 

Rapid, lot-level traceability is essential for identifying contaminated food, shortening outbreak investigations, reducing the scope of recalls and preventing additional illnesses. While implementation timelines have been delayed for FSMA 204, the domestic fresh produce industry has largely operated under case-level traceability expectations since implementation of the voluntary Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI) in 2010–2011. These case level data elements are frequently lost as the product moves through the supply chain; this is unfair for consumers and producers. Traceability expectations should apply consistently across domestic and imported supply chains so that critical data is not lost as products move through commerce. 

Prevention: Agricultural Water Intelligence & Infrastructure 

A nationally coordinated agricultural water surveillance program can provide routine monitoring of shared surface waters and high-risk aquifers, creating an early-warning and decision-support system for growers. Today, data like this exist in private, local, state and federal silos and that fragmentation limits the potential impact and preventative value that this data could represent. Shared data, common risk frameworks and targeted infrastructure support can help identify vulnerabilities early and accelerate practical risk-reduction measures. 

Surveillance: Measure Residual Risk 

Microbiological surveillance should be designed to improve understanding of residual food safety risk while minimizing unnecessary market disruption. Domestic surveillance can support continuous improvement, while statistically designed real-time surveillance at ports of entry can strengthen oversight of imported produce before it enters commerce. 

Risk-Based Data Sharing: Focus Resources Where Risk Is Highest, and Reward Suppliers that Contribute the Most. 

The burden of entry (or sale) shouldn’t be one audit certificate, regardless of what food safety standard it meets. Suppliers that have invested in thorough risk characterization and monitoring should be prioritized over those with data gaps and missing information. Standardized, interoperable data-sharing systems can give regulators better visibility into preventive controls, laboratory testing, agricultural water monitoring, GAP verification and lot-level traceability. When validated data demonstrate consistently effective food safety systems, oversight can become more efficient and regulatory resources can be concentrated where uncertainty and risk are greatest. 

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Heat Illness Reminder for CA and AZ

August 6th, 2026

With another stretch of extreme heat affecting agricultural regions across the West, employers should take time now to confirm that heat illness prevention procedures are fully implemented, communicated and documented.  

In California, Cal/OSHA recently reminded employers of their obligation to provide workers with adequate water, shade or cool-down areas, rest breaks, and training. Arizona employers should also review their heat safety practices in light of ADOSH’s continued focus on heat-related hazards through its State Emphasis Program and recently approved workplace heat safety guidance. 

Weather forecasts can change quickly, and outdoor crews may face different conditions by location, crop activity, shift schedule and intensity of work. During these periods of intense heat, employers should continue monitoring local forecasts, identify high-risk work areas, and confirm that supervisors understand when additional precautions are required. 

Visit the National Weather Service website for the latest forecasts and heat alerts for specific work locations. 

California: Cal/OSHA Heat Illness Prevention Requirements 

Heat illness is a serious and potentially fatal workplace hazard. Under Cal/OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Standards, California employers must protect workers from heat-related illness in both indoor and outdoor workplaces. Employers may be covered by both the indoor and outdoor regulations if they have employees working in each setting. 

California’s indoor heat illness prevention regulation applies to most indoor workplaces when temperatures reach 82 degrees. Covered employers must take steps such as providing water, access to cool-down areas, rest breaks, and training. Employers with packinghouses, warehouses, shops or other indoor work areas should evaluate whether both indoor and outdoor heat illness rules apply to their operations. 

For outdoor worksites, employers must provide fresh water, access to shade and cool-down rest breaks whenever requested by a worker. Shade must be available when temperatures exceed 80 degrees. In designated high-heat industries such as agriculture, additional procedures apply when temperatures reach or exceed 95 degrees, including regular observation for signs of heat illness and maintaining effective communication methods for employees and supervisors. 

California employers should also maintain a written heat illness prevention plan and provide effective training so supervisors and employees can recognize the signs and symptoms of heat illness and respond promptly in an emergency. 

Arizona: ADOSH State Emphasis Program – Heat Stress 

Arizona does not currently have a California-style heat-specific OSHA standard. However, Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health (ADOSH) continues to emphasize heat illness prevention through its Heat State Emphasis Program and enforcement under Arizona’s General Duty Clause. The program focuses on practical controls such as water, rest, shade, acclimatization, training, and written heat illness prevention procedures. 

In April 2026, the Industrial Commission of Arizona approved workplace heat safety recommendations developed through the state’s Workplace Heat Safety Task Force. The recommendations call for written heat illness prevention plans, ready access to potable water, shade located as close as practicable to the work area, preventative cool-down rests, acclimatization procedures, and training for both employees and supervisors. 

Arizona employers should treat these recommendations as a practical compliance roadmap. Before and during high-heat periods, confirm that crews have enough cool drinking water, shaded recovery areas, clear rest-break practices, a process for acclimatizing new or returning workers, effective emergency-response procedures, and supervisor training that reflects field conditions. 

No matter your location, during periods of intense heat, keep these best practices in mind: 

  • Review. Review written heat illness prevention plans before high-heat periods and update them for current worksites, crews and job duties. 
  • Confirm. Confirm water, shade or cool-down areas and rest-break procedures are available and understood by supervisors and employees. 
  • Train. Train supervisors to recognize early signs of heat illness, monitor employees during high-heat conditions and respond quickly to emergencies. 
  • Document. Document training, inspections, corrective actions and any heat-related incidents or near-misses. 
  • Don’t Assume. For multi-state operations, avoid assuming that compliance in one state will satisfy another state’s heat-related requirements. Tailor your workplace practices to the specific rules and guidance applicable to each worksite and its location. 

Tags: , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Western Growers needs your help—and we need it now.

August 6th, 2026

The Governor and legislators need to hear directly from the growers, shippers and businesses that will have to pay for SB 54 regulation, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act. They need to understand that these costs will increase food prices, put jobs at risk and make it harder for California farms and businesses to stay open. Please contact both your legislators and Governor Newsom and explain what this program will mean for your business, your employees and the families who buy your products.

The projected cost is staggering. Circular Action Alliance (CAA) has been contracted by the state to implement the regulation. Their recently released proposed budget alone is between $9.3 billion and $17.2 billion over five years. The annual budget starts at between $1.3 billion and $1.9 billion in 2027 and grows to between $2.6 billion and $5 billion by 2031. All of this money will come from fees paid by producers.

These numbers do not include the billions of dollars businesses may have to spend to redesign packaging, buy new equipment, test new materials and make other changes. An independent study estimates that SB 54 could cost between $56 billion and $78 billion by 2032 and add as much as $1,350 a year to the average California family’s grocery bill.

The Legislature is running out of time. August 21 is the last day bills can be amended on the floor, and August 31 is the last day bills can pass. Legislative leaders need to find a bill they can use to fix these problems before the session ends.

Please contact your state senator and Assembly member today.

Use the Legislature’s Find Your Representative website twice:

    • Enter your home address to find the legislators who represent you personally.
    • Enter your business address to find the legislators who represent your farm, packing operation or company.

If your home and business are in different districts, you may have four legislators to contact. Please call both their Capitol and district offices and then follow up with an email.

When you call, keep your message simple:

    • Tell them you live or operate a business in their district.
    • Explain what your company grows, packs or ships and how many people you employ.
    • Tell them how SB 54 will affect your business.
    • Producers still do not know what their fees will be.
    • CAA may charge extra malus fees on packaging it considers difficult to recycle—even when no affordable alternative can safely protect fresh produce.
    • It is still unclear which company in the supply chain must register and pay the fees.
    • Companies should not face huge fines while these basic questions remain unanswered.

Here is what we are asking for:

We need the Legislature to pass a bill that pauses SB 54 fees, fines and enforcement until:

    • Producers know what they will be charged.
    • It is clear who must register and pay.
    • Food-safety packaging exclusions are resolved.
    • The special packaging needs of fresh produce are addressed.

Please also contact the Governor and the leaders of both houses:

Please make your calls today. Afterward, let Western Growers know which offices you contacted and what response you received via email at [email protected].

Gail Delihant
Sr. Director, CA Government Affairs
916-284-4734

Tags: ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Court Affirms 99% Reduction in $56 Million PAGA Penalty Demand

August 6th, 2026

A California Court of Appeal has affirmed a trial court’s decision to reduce nearly $56 million in requested Private Attorneys General Act penalties to approximately $516,000. The 99% reduction is reportedly the largest reduction of a PAGA penalty demand in the law’s history. 

The published decision, Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., provides employers with important guidance on how proportionality, limited employee harm, good-faith compliance efforts and prompt corrective action may substantially reduce PAGA exposure. 

The former employee alleged several wage-and-hour violations. By the time of trial, liability remained on four claims involving wage statements, overtime calculations and rest periods. Because the parties had stipulated to most of the relevant facts, the trial focused primarily on the appropriate amount of civil penalties. 

The employee calculated the default statutory penalties at $55,985,350. The trial court instead awarded $516,965 after examining the circumstances surrounding each violation. The court found that several violations were technical, certain claims resulted in no unpaid wages, and the underpayments associated with other claims were relatively small. The court also considered the employer’s good-faith efforts to comply with the law and its prompt corrective actions after receiving notice of the PAGA claim. 

The Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that Labor Code section 2699(e)(2) does not require courts to use a particular formula when reducing PAGA penalties. After calculating the maximum potential penalty, a court may use any reasonable method to arrive at a lesser amount, including a reduction based on a percentage, pay period or affected employee. 

The appellate court also upheld a significant reduction in the employee’s attorney’s fees. Although the employee requested approximately $1.57 million based on a positive multiplier, the trial court applied a reduced multiplier and awarded $733,440. The court relied on the relatively straightforward and records-based nature of the claims, the use of current billing rates for work performed years earlier, and the limited recovery compared with the penalties sought. 

The Decision’s Significance After PAGA Reform 

Although the case was tried before California enacted its 2024 PAGA reform legislation, Taduran underscores more than ever the importance of taking all reasonable steps to comply with the Labor Code, both before and after receiving a PAGA notice. 

Under the reformed statute, an employer that takes all reasonable steps to comply before receiving a PAGA notice or a request for records may have its penalties capped at 15% of the otherwise available amount. An employer that takes all reasonable steps within 60 days after receiving notice may qualify for a 30% cap. The statute also preserves the court’s authority to reduce penalties further when the circumstances warrant it. 

Reasonable steps may include conducting payroll audits, adopting lawful written policies, training supervisors, correcting identified practices and making employees whole. Whether an employer has taken all reasonable steps will depend on the totality of the circumstances, including the size and resources of the employer and the nature, severity and duration of the alleged violations. 

What Employers Should Do Now 

Employers should not wait for a PAGA notice to review their wage-and-hour practices. Regular payroll audits, updated policies, management training and documented corrective action may help prevent violations and position an employer to benefit from the reform legislation’s 15% penalty cap. 

Once a PAGA notice is received, the employer should immediately investigate the allegations, quantify any potential underpayments and determine whether corrective action or available cure procedures should be pursued. Prompt remediation may support application of the 30% cap and, as Taduran demonstrates, may also persuade a court to reduce penalties well below the statutory cap when the maximum amount would be disproportionate to the violations and actual employee harm. 

Taduran has petitioned the California Supreme Court for review; whether the Court will grant review remains to be seen.  Nevertheless, the case serves as a strong reminder that an employer’s response matters. Good-faith compliance efforts and meaningful corrective action can materially affect the outcome of PAGA litigation. 

Congratulations to Scott C. Lacunza, Kathy A. Le and Dylan B. Carp of Jackson Lewis P.C., who represented Glidewell throughout the litigation. Jackson Lewis is a member of the Western Growers Ag Legal Network.

Tags: , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Fifth Time a Charm for Ag Labor Reform in Congress?

August 6th, 2026

Here we go again.

We are once again beginning a race all too familiar, with persistent hope that this time we will cross the finish line: A bill signing ceremony in the White House.

We have a pretty good start this time around.

At the end of June, I was pleased to join industry colleagues from around the country for a press conference in Washington where House Agriculture Committee Chairman G.T. Thompson (R-PA) introduced HR 9535, the “Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act (SAWA).” The legislation’s genesis is an interesting part of this story.

In 2023, Thompson created a bipartisan House Agriculture Committee working group on ag labor. After months of hearings and research, it issued recommendations to address agriculture’s labor crisis. Thompson used those recommendations to develop the legislation with industry representatives and bipartisan House support, despite the Agriculture Committee having no jurisdiction over labor policy. That rests with the House Judiciary Committee.

SAWA builds on elements of the twice-passed Farm Workforce Modernization Act and updates it to reflect the realities we now confront. Specifically, SAWA codifies positive changes to the H-2A visa program recently made by the Trump Labor Department. Chief among them is a new Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) methodology that has lowered wage rates and helped many smaller farming operations remain viable. How critical has this been? Look to California, where the AEWR rose nearly 34 percent during the Biden administration, far outpacing abnormally high inflation.

In several other respects, SAWA streamlines the H-2A program and makes practical changes that give employers greater flexibility, ease of use and greater certainty that the bureaucracy will deliver.

A key question is how the legislation would affect experienced agricultural employees not legally present in the U.S. The Farm Workforce Modernization Act (FWMA) allowed these valued employees to obtain renewable five-year agriculture work visas, with qualifying conditions (e.g., no felonies, payment of fines, etc.). SAWA instead proposes to allow these workers to convert to H-2A visa holders, if they pass a background check and meet other conditions.

This provision will draw attention from Thompson’s fellow Republicans, starting with those on the House Judiciary Committee, which will be the first stop for this bill. Hard-liners may insist that these workers be forced to “touch back” to their countries of origin before applying for a visa. This was demanded by many Republicans in a previous ag labor reform effort, compelling WG (hat tip to Tom Nassif) to work to defeat it. As every farmer knows, forcing these valued employees to leave the U.S. for a country that is not home will gut our workforce with no means of recovery.

Thompson and the nearly 50 members of the House (mostly fellow Republicans) who joined as original co-authors of SAWA appreciate this. But the Judiciary Committee’s Republican members include at least nine who are also members of, or aligned with, the House Freedom Caucus, including Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). It will take some work to persuade enough of them to advance this legislation, while likely also needing some of the committee’s Democrat members to join.

Assuming that needle can be threaded, Thompson and allies will need to push hard to get a House floor vote, and then, the Senate…which is where the FMWA languished twice without so much as a hearing.

In the last 20 years, our industry has had at least four legislative reform efforts come close to the finish line. The now faded “AgJOBS” legislation of 2006-07 created elements for the next four attempts. Next was the “Gang of Eight” bill, passed by a two-thirds vote in the Senate in 2013, only to be ignored by the House. The two FWMA bills followed, as noted above, both ignored by the Senate.

Is the fifth time a charm? Maybe. Things have changed a lot since even the last FWMA bill passed. Farmers in more regions of the country have turned to H-2A out of necessity, creating a lot of new advocates for reform. Also of note, the dairy industry is fully engaged because SAWA would give them access to H-2A visas for the first time.

My predecessor, Tom Nassif, often appealed to those in the Congress who could step forward as statesmen, suppressing partisan inclinations and leading towards sound public policy solutions. G.T. Thompson has stepped forward. Our imperative—indeed, all of American agriculture’s—is to insist that Congress act to protect American farmers and food production, especially as the issue gets hot in social media and talk radio.

There is a wild card to all this: President Trump. Several times he has made comments that directionally align with what Thompson’s legislation would do. Having secured the border, he is in a uniquely powerful position to pull off a “Nixon Goes to China” moment. Were he to publicly and strongly support the Thompson effort, the likelihood of this Congress moving this bill to his desk increases substantially.

The President knows where we stand, and how critical this moment is. He often calls America’s farmers his strongest base of support and proudly proclaims his love of them. There is no greater opportunity for him to reciprocate the affection than in leading a durable resolution to our chronic labor crisis and securing American farming and food production.

Tags:
Posted in July / August / September 2026 Issue | No Comments »

AB 2646: California’s Latest Attempt to Price Agriculture Out of California

August 6th, 2026

AB 2646, authored by Assemblymember Maggy Krell, has, as of this writing, cleared the Assembly on a 58-16 vote and has now been taken up by the Senate. The bill would establish a new California minimum hourly wage of $19.75 for “approved agricultural employees” and “corresponding employees” beginning Jan. 1, 2027, with annual increases tied to the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment.

The bill never says “H-2A.” It does not have to. Everyone in agriculture understands what this is about.

AB 2646 is aimed squarely at the federal H-2A guestworker program. The bill defines “approved agricultural employees” to include out-of-state agricultural workers permitted to work in California on a temporary or seasonal basis through a state-approved job order or application. It also covers “corresponding employees”—domestic workers performing the same or substantially similar work. In practice, the bill would create a California wage mandate for H-2A workers and the domestic employees tied to those positions.

That would be no small change. It also would not occur in a vacuum.

H-2A is already one of the most highly regulated labor programs in the country. Agricultural employers using the program must provide free housing, pay inbound and outbound transportation costs and either provide three meals a day or free and convenient cooking facilities. These obligations come on top of federal wage requirements and extensive compliance rules. AB 2646 would add a separate state wage floor on top of that federal structure.

The result is easy to predict: higher costs for California farms already squeezed by labor, water, energy, insurance, regulation and unforgiving market conditions. Sacramento often talks as if these costs can simply be absorbed. They cannot. They are passed on to consumers, borne by growers operating on razor-thin or negative margins, or avoided entirely when production moves elsewhere.

That last consequence deserves more attention than it usually receives in the Capitol. California agriculture does not compete in a closed market. Buyers have options. When the state makes it more expensive to grow food here, buyers do not always pay a premium for California-grown products. Often, they source from somewhere else. AB 2646 would accelerate that trend, weakening domestic production while doing nothing to raise labor standards in the countries that replace it.

The bill also invites litigation. If AB 2646 reaches the governor’s desk and becomes law, it is likely to face a serious federal preemption challenge. The H-2A program is governed by a comprehensive federal statutory and regulatory scheme designed to determine the terms under which temporary foreign agricultural workers may be employed without adversely affecting U.S. workers. A state law that effectively recalibrates H-2A wage obligations raises substantial Supremacy Clause concerns.

The bill’s drafters may have avoided naming H-2A, but courts look to substance, not obfuscatory labels.

Western Growers and other agricultural organizations are likely to litigate that question if AB 2646 becomes law. We would be right to do so.

California policymakers say they want a stable domestic food supply, stronger rural communities and fair treatment for farmworkers. AB 2646 undermines all three. It imposes an artificial wage mandate on top of an already expensive federal guestworker program, raises costs for producers and consumers and further erodes the competitiveness of California agriculture.

At some point, the state must decide whether it wants food grown here—or merely wants to regulate the farms that remain until they no longer can.

Tags:
Posted in July / August / September 2026 Issue | No Comments »

Western Growers Field Demo Day: A culmination of big ideas to solve a grower challenge

August 19th, 2026

On Friday, August 28, 2026, Western Growers will host its inaugural Field Demo Day event that took years of vision to become reality.

Developed in partnership with Reservoir Farms, Western Growers’ Senior Director of Commercialization Ben Palone has created the environment for companies like Verdant Robotics, Stout Industrial Technology, Inc., Ecorobotix, Niqo Robotics Axis Ag, Inc., SeedSpider, FarmWise (acquired by Taylor Farms), and Carbon Robotics to demonstrate product value in a field grown specifically for this purpose.

This event is the first of a series that is designed to showcase agtech solutions in a real agricultural environment. Attendees can assess a pre-treatment section where demonstrators have performed a weeding pass and growers will see how the crop grows and how well their technology removed weeds.

In an answer to finding where the rubber meets the road to move agtech from promise to production, the Field Demo Day is a valuable time investment to see demonstrations on someone else’s crop first.

Sign up to attend here.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »