CAA Webinar Provides Overview of SB 54 Producer Fee-Setting

October 23rd, 2026

Circular Action Alliance (CAA) hosted a webinar this week to provide an overview of its fee-setting approach for California’s packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law, SB 54. The webinar covered how program costs are developed, allocated across materials and used to calculate producer fees, as well as the key principles, processes and investments supported through producer funding.

View the recording here.

The webinar comes after CAA submitted its revised program plan to CalRecycle. The revised plan reflects feedback received during the 60-day public comment period and includes updates aimed at improving transparency, strengthening implementation and providing greater clarity around proposed program investments and costs.

CalRecycle is reviewing the revised plan and will determine whether to approve, disapprove or conditionally approve it by Dec. 28, 2026.

USDA and FBI to Host Webinar on Produce Industry Fraud Prevention

October 22nd, 2026

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is partnering with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to host a free webinar on fraud prevention for produce‑industry members.

The webinar comes amid reports of sophisticated imposter fraud schemes targeting buyers, sellers and transporters across fruit and vegetable supply chains. Recent allegations reported to USDA’s Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) Division point to fraudulent procurement attempts involving spoofed identities, falsified credentials, altered email domains and deceptive trust-building tactics.

The presentation is part of ongoing USDA and FBI efforts to strengthen industry awareness and fraud prevention through outreach and information sharing.

The webinar will be held on Thursday, Nov. 5, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. PST. No registration is required.

Meeting ID: 279 834 785 666 187

Passcode: wM6LK3aD

Message to Elected Officials: Put Economic Consequences Above All Else

October 22nd, 2026

The elections are behind us, thankfully. No more campaign ads on our computers, phones and television screens, no more cardstock attack pieces clogging up our mailboxes. At least for a while.

Those elected, or reelected, to serve in state and national offices are hopefully turning to the task of governing. Many know Western Growers and our members well, and many don’t. In either case, I think it’s a good time to refresh for them, and for ourselves, the state of our industry and the ways they can process complex and competing policy demands.

We tend to take on policy issues in buckets, which can be helpful in focusing attention on those more critical or urgent. But with so many farmers struggling with an unprecedented deluge of challenges, it seems wise to construct a filter through which political leaders should pass every policy issue presented to them.

To my mind, the relevant question to ask—the filter through which every policy issue should be tested—is this: Does this policy build up or degrade the economic viability of American farmers?

No other question really matters when you think about it. A noble-sounding piece of legislation that would “help workers” or “protect the environment” will have entirely failed if it contributes to the further degradation of economic viability that is driving American farmers— and especially those operating in California—toward consolidation, bankruptcy or relocation of operations to foreign lands.

Look no farther than California’s union-backed overtime wage law for farmworkers. Everyone— farmworkers and farmers alike—are being harmed due to that law’s predicted conflict with the laws of economics.

Another example: The tangle of state and federal regulations championed by environmental interest groups, premised on restoring listed fish species to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, has entirely failed to achieve any of the stated environmental objectives. But the economic consequences have been robust: The picture of the future San Joaquin Valley features sweeping areas of abandoned dusty land and solar “farms.”

The rationale for passing proposed policies through an economic viability lens should be apparent, but sadly it is not so obvious in Congress and many state capitals.

Farm bankruptcies, consolidation and dependence on foreign food production have all been increasing.

  • National farm bankruptcies increased 46 percent in 2025; California had the most of any state in 2024.
  • The U.S. lost 141,733 farms from 2017 to 2022; California lost about 10 percent of its farms in the same period.
  • Large operations with 2,000-plus crop acres went from controlling 15 percent of U.S. cropland in 1987 to 41 percent in 2017.
  • Imports now account for about 59 percent of U.S. fresh-fruit availability and 35 percent of fresh-vegetable availability.

So, with that troubling data in mind, and that lens properly affixed to their gazes, here are just some of the priorities Congress and the California legislature should tackle, if they really do believe that American farming and food production is worth saving.

Federal labor policy: Congress and President Trump need to finally do the right thing and pass ag labor reform legislation. The bill introduced by G.T. Thompson (R-PA) has bipartisan co-sponsors and the strong support of virtually every segment of American agriculture. It is desperately needed in securing American farm stability.

California labor policy: So much to unpack here, but let’s start with the most obvious, which is the aforementioned overtime law. It has demonstrably caused farmworkers to earn less, while contributing mightily to farm bankruptcy, consolidation and flight to other states and countries. The next Governor and Legislature cannot be taken seriously as promoters of California’s sustained agricultural vibrancy without confronting this disaster and stepping up to course correct.

Water supply: California needs to stop trying to satisfy the demands of environmental “non-government organizations” (NGOs). They will never be satisfied. Their business models are grounded on perpetuation of conflict with water users (especially their shameful demonization of family farm entities as “corporate ag”). Were they to ever declare satisfaction with a major water policy, they would have one less conflict to use to motivate donors. Executives working in non-profit NGOs don’t want to dampen the enthusiasm of the donors who pay their salaries. Elected leaders need to come to terms with this reality and get about the business of building infrastructure and using it to restore economic viability to California’s farms.

Crop protection: Get back to science and analysis based on risk management. Activists are counting on state and federal legislators and agencies to bend under the pressure of fact-challenged and emotionally powerful claims that all pesticides are dangerous to human health in all circumstances. Science doesn’t agree, and the economic consequences of banning well-understood and safely used tools are sure to increase food costs and force more American farm production abroad.

This list could go much longer, of course. But the central idea here is what matters: Economic consequences trump all else in public policy. Lose sight of that, and soon you won’t have anyone left to regulate.

Reports of Immigration Enforcement Underscore Need for Preparedness

October 23rd, 2026

Western Growers has received reports of immigration enforcement activity in the Fresno and Madera areas, as well as on the Central Coast, including requests to enter agricultural property and encounters involving farmworkers traveling to work. 

One account described agents making repeated requests to a landowner for access to a farm. A labor contractor reported that three workers were detained following a vehicle stop in Fresno. The contractor also described an encounter at a Madera ranch where workers remained inside locked vehicles while agents questioned them through the windows about their immigration status. According to that account, the agents eventually departed. 

Western Growers has not independently verified these accounts, and the circumstances surrounding the reported stops, detentions and requests for access remain unclear. They nevertheless highlight the need for agricultural employers to prepare before agents arrive. 

An enforcement encounter can unfold quickly. Receptionists, field supervisors, crew leaders and farm labor contractors should know whom to contact and how to respond. 

What Employers Should Do Now 

  • Designate a response team. Identify a primary contact and backup authorized to communicate with agents. Keep legal counsel’s contact information readily available and coordinate the plan with labor contractors. 
  • Ask for identification and review the paperwork. Request agents’ names, agency identification and copies of any warrant, subpoena or inspection notice. An ICE administrative warrant is different from a judicial warrant and generally does not authorize nonconsensual entry into private workplace areas. Have counsel promptly review the document and its scope. 
  • Address property access in advance. Train staff to refer access requests to the designated contact rather than casually inviting agents into restricted areas. Review your operation’s offices, packing facilities, fields and access roads with counsel. Private ownership alone does not resolve every access question, and federal law provides specific authority to enter certain private lands near the border for border patrol purposes. 
  • Stay calm and document the encounter. Do not physically obstruct agents, conceal workers, provide false information or destroy records. Record what agents request, what documents they present and what actions they take. Preserve relevant security footage. 
  • Know the deadlines for an I-9 inspection. A Notice of Inspection generally gives employers at least three business days to produce requested Forms I-9. California employers must also provide the required employee and union notices within 72 hours of receiving the inspection notice. Additional notification duties apply to inspection results affecting employees. Contact counsel immediately so neither deadline is missed. 
  • Review records and employee communications now. Conduct a counsel-guided I-9 review, correct errors properly and train supervisors to share verified information.  

Employers should rehearse their response before an encounter occurs. A written plan is useful only if the people answering the door or supervising the crew know how to follow it. 

Best Practices: Performance Reviews Formats

October 23rd, 2026

Performance reviews, or employee evaluations, are an important tool for supervisors and managers to strengthen employees’ performance and acknowledge high achievers. For effective performance reviews we provide the following tips on performance review formats.   

The two major styles in writing reviews are a narrative style and a rating system. The narrative requires the manager or supervisor to write out comments about the employee and the job performance in response to a broad question. The rating system “grades” the employee on various factors. Many companies find a combination of narrative and ratings to be effective. How much of each kind will be used is a decision left up to management. Each has advantages and disadvantages. For example, narratives such as “describe employee’s performance in regard to quality” provokes the supervisor or manager to write their own thoughts about the performance. If periodic discussions are conducted throughout the year with the employee are documented and specific, this will be easier for the supervisor to do. These thoughts tend to be job specific, obviously, and relate to the company’s performance standards. 

The downside is that many supervisors will feel unsure about how to express themselves or what to write about. In the ratings section, the supervisor may find it easier to check a box or circle a number; but the information tends to be generic and less specific. The employee must be able to relate to the information in a review, to correct behavior or continue doing a good job.  

Oftentimes a company will utilize a format that asks for a rating and then provides space for a written explanation or substantiation of the rating. It is essential that the rationalization be specific and factual, so the employee understands what is being discussed. Typically, employee review forms end with an overall rating of theemployee’s performance. This can be extremely helpful in summarizing the other aspects of the review to a conclusion. The employee then leaves the review process with a clear understanding of their overall performance regarding the standards of the job. Managers and supervisors must be aware, though, that the entire review should point logically to this conclusion. If the overall rating does not make sense when compared to other ratings and comments, confusion results. This is to be avoided as it may lead to the employee finding other reasons for the rating (e.g., discrimination, favoritism, etc.). 

It is important to keep in mind, however, that even though both the supervisor and employee expect a review to include a “rating” of the employee, this is not the only purpose for an employee evaluation. Another key component is to engage in a dialogue with the employee to assist the employee in improving performance and developing their skills. 

The evaluation form and procedure can also incorporate the “team” concept. Since very few employees work entirely independent of others, the supervisor may want to include a rating or narrative on the team as a whole. This also fosters an incentive for everyone in the work group to do their part so that the “team” is successful. 

Any form used should be provided to the employee. Sometimes employees are asked to do a “self-evaluation” which can identify whether the supervisor and employee are focusing on the same issues. In any event, the employee should know the criteria for the review so that they can engage in a discussion with the supervisor.

Cal/OSHA Moves to Define Egregious and Enterprise-Wide Violations

October 23rd, 2026

When California enacted SB 606 in 2021, it created two powerful new Cal/OSHA enforcement tools: Egregious Violations and Enterprise-Wide Violations. While those provisions have been on the books for several years, Cal/OSHA is only now proposing regulations that would establish how the agency intends to classify these violations and calculate penalties under the law.

To that end, Cal/OSHA has commenced formal rulemaking to incorporate these classifications into California’s occupational safety and health regulations and establish procedures for citation and penalty calculations. The proposal will be considered at a public hearing scheduled for December 3, 2026, with written comments due by November 30, 2026. 

What Do the Regulations Propose? 

The proposed regulations provide additional detail regarding when Cal/OSHA may characterize a violation as “enterprise-wide.” Generally, the classification may apply when an employer maintains a written policy or procedure that violates a safety requirement or when there is evidence of a pattern or practice of the same violation occurring at more than one worksite. 

For many employers, the significance lies in the reality of operating across multiple worksites and affiliated entities. Where safety programs, management practices, or operational procedures are shared across locations, a deficiency identified at one worksite could potentially prompt broader scrutiny elsewhere within the organization. 

In other words, the issue may not be limited to whether a violation occurred at one ranch, packinghouse, shop, or facility. Cal/OSHA may also examine whether the same deficiency reflects a broader policy, practice, or failure appearing across multiple locations. This makes it especially important to communicate and implement corrective actions throughout the organization when the same issue could exist elsewhere. 

The proposal also sheds additional light on how Cal/OSHA intends to apply the Egregious Violation classification. Under the proposed regulations, a violation generally must first qualify as willful before it may be classified as egregious. Factors that may support an egregious classification include an employer’s prior history of serious, repeat, willful, or egregious violations; conduct demonstrating intentional disregard of employee safety; conduct amounting to clear bad faith; and violations associated with particularly serious outcomes, including fatalities, catastrophes, or multiple injuries or illnesses. 

In practical terms, the proposed criteria focus on conduct suggesting repeated noncompliance, intentional disregard, bad faith, or a failure to address known safety concerns, rather than treating every safety violation as egregious. 

Perhaps most importantly, the proposed regulations illustrate how penalties may be assessed. An egregious violation could result in separate citations and penalties for each employee exposed to the violative condition. Likewise, enterprise-wide violations could allow penalties to be assessed across multiple locations where the same deficient practice exists. For employers with numerous California worksites, the difference between an isolated citation and an enterprise-wide citation could be significant. 

As discussed here, California law already authorizes Cal/OSHA to pursue enterprise-wide citations and, in certain circumstances, count affected employees separately for penalty purposes. The current rulemaking does not expand that authority, but it does provide the clearest picture yet of how Cal/OSHA intends to exercise it. 

What Does It Mean? 

While the proposal does not impose new statutory obligations, it serves as a timely reminder to evaluate whether safety programs are not only uniformly written, but effective, current, and consistently implemented across all locations. Most importantly, employers should keep in mind that a standardized policy can create broader risk if the same flaw is repeated throughout the organization. 

For businesses operating multiple locations, the message behind the proposed regulations is straightforward: Cal/OSHA is increasingly focused on patterns, practices, and systemic safety failures rather than viewing each worksite in isolation. As the agency moves forward in developing regulations clarifying how it will enforce SB 606, employers should take the opportunity to review enterprise-wide safety practices before an inspection raises those questions for them. 

Additional information, including public hearing details and a videoconference link for the hearing, can be found by visiting Cal-OSHA’s website.  

E-Verify Records Scheduled for Deletion: What Employers Should Do Now

October 23rd, 2026

For employers that have participated in E-Verify for many years, the start of 2027 brings an important record-retention deadline. USCIS recently announced that employers have until January 8, 2027, to download E-Verify records for cases last updated on or before December 31, 2016. After that date, USCIS will permanently dispose of those records as part of its records retention schedule. 

While the announcement does not change employers’ Form I-9 obligations, it does create a limited opportunity to preserve historical E-Verify information that may no longer be available once the records are deleted. 

According to USCIS, employers have until January 8, 2027, to download records associated with E-Verify cases last updated on or before December 31, 2016. USCIS will dispose of those records on January 11, 2027. Employers can preserve the information by downloading the Historical Records Report from E-Verify before the deadline. The Historical Records Report contains company information, case identifiers, and case resolution information for the affected E-Verify cases. USCIS also reminds employers that they should record the E-Verify case verification number on the corresponding Form I-9 or attach a copy of the case details page to the Form I-9 and that the Historical Records Report should be retained with the Forms I-9. 

What Does it Mean? 

For employers with long hiring histories, records may be spread across multiple worksites, HR teams, payroll providers, recruiters, or legacy systems. In some cases, the employees who originally managed E-Verify accounts may no longer be with the organization. 

The disposal deadline provides an opportunity to confirm that historical E-Verify information is properly retained and that older records are not lost simply because they were overlooked. Employers that have been enrolled in E-Verify since 2016 or earlier may be particularly affected. 

A few key steps to consider before the deadline, include: 

  • Identify E-Verify accounts that were active before 2017. 
  • Confirm who has administrator access to those accounts. 
  • Download any available Historical Records Reports before January 8, 2027. 
  • Determine where the records should be maintained within the organization’s I-9 retention system. 
  • Document the preservation effort as part of broader immigration compliance and audit-preparedness practices. 

The January 8, 2027 deadline is not a new compliance requirement, but it is an important housekeeping reminder for long-time E-Verify users. Employers that participated in E-Verify before 2017 should review their records now, confirm access to historical accounts, and download any needed reports before USCIS permanently disposes of the affected records. 

California’s War on the Driverless Tractor

October 22nd, 2026

A Rule Written for Another Age

A Cal/OSHA regulation rooted in the 1970s requires self-propelled agricultural equipment moving under its own power to have an operator stationed at the controls. The rule made sense when autonomous farm equipment belonged to science fiction and a driverless tractor meant someone had fallen off.

Nearly 50 years later, tractors can follow mapped routes, remain within geofenced boundaries, detect people and obstacles and stop automatically. But California still generally requires a human being at the controls whenever employees could enter the area.

The tractor has changed. The regulation has not.

Sacramento’s Innovation Paradox

This might be merely another example of government moving slowly if the consequences were not so serious. California growers face a persistent labor shortage, rising wages, agricultural overtime, increasingly expensive H-2A requirements and fierce competition from foreign producers that operate under very different labor and regulatory standards. Sacramento’s answer to nearly every agricultural problem is that growers must become more efficient, adopt new technology and do more with less.

Then, when the technology arrives, the state tells growers to put someone in the driver’s seat.

The Elevator Operator Problem

History has seen this before. Push-button elevators were commercially viable by the early 20th century, but elevator operators remained common for decades. Municipal codes continued to require attendants, the public distrusted the idea of riding alone and unions negotiated agreements protecting operator positions even in buildings equipped for automatic service. Safety was the stated concern, and early elevators certainly presented real hazards. But as automatic door-reopening sensors, floor-leveling systems, emergency interlocks, communications equipment and braking systems became standard, the safety rationale steadily weakened.

The 1945 New York City elevator strike helped expose the absurdity of having an entire city depend on people performing a function that machines could reliably perform themselves. Today, requiring a licensed operator to stand inside every elevator and press the button would seem ridiculous.

California is repeating that history in the fields.

Regulate the Risk, Not the Seat

The justification, of course, is safety. Tractors and other heavy equipment can cause serious injuries and fatalities. No responsible grower or equipment manufacturer disputes that reality. Autonomous equipment should not receive a free pass, and no one is asking for one.

But safety rules should measure whether equipment operates safely. They should not assume that the presence of a human operator is the only way to make it safe.

Modern autonomous equipment can incorporate obstacle-detection systems, cameras, radar, geofencing, audible warnings, emergency-stop controls, speed limitations and automatic shutdown features. International standards now address the design and testing of partially automated and autonomous agricultural machinery. The technology can record operating data and document near misses in ways a conventional tractor cannot.

A rule that simply requires a person at the controls does not account for any of this. It regulates the seating arrangement rather than the risk.

It can also produce the opposite of its intended result. An autonomous tractor can perform repetitive tasks in extreme heat, operate in areas recently treated with crop-protection products and remove employees from rollover and equipment-strike hazards. Requiring a person to remain on or immediately beside the machine may put a worker back into the very environment the technology was designed to avoid.

Studying the Future While Blocking the Present

Cal/OSHA itself has recognized that the old rule needs attention. After previously opposing petitions to allow autonomous agricultural vehicles, the agency acknowledged in 2024 that it had learned more about the technology and rescinded its general opposition. An advisory committee followed, bringing together regulators, growers, manufacturers, unions, worker advocates and researchers.

That was progress. But studying the future is not the same as permitting it.

California’s regulatory process can take years. Technology companies do not have years to wait while their capital dries up and their competitors establish themselves elsewhere. Growers cannot make long-term investments in equipment when the legal right to use it depends on a variance, an empty field or the hope that regulators will eventually rewrite a rule adopted before the personal computer.

A Field Is Not a Freeway

The state also should resist importing the debate over driverless trucks and robotaxis into agriculture. An autonomous tractor moving slowly within a defined field is not an 80,000-pound truck traveling on Interstate 5. It is not a Waymo navigating pedestrians, bicycles, traffic signals and public intersections. Agricultural equipment operates in controlled environments where access, routes, speed and work zones can be carefully managed by the employer.

Different risks call for different rules.

Protecting Jobs by Losing Them

Some opponents are less concerned about how autonomous tractors operate than about whether they operate at all. Beneath many of the safety arguments is a more basic fear that automation will displace workers.

That concern deserves an honest response. Technology changes jobs, and some tasks will require fewer people. Pretending otherwise would undermine the case for reform.

But refusing to automate will not preserve agricultural jobs if the farm itself becomes uncompetitive. California growers do not sell into a protected market. Buyers can obtain produce from other states: Mexico, South America and elsewhere. When labor and regulatory costs make California production uneconomic, acreage moves or disappears. The jobs follow it.

Automation also does not eliminate the need for people. It changes the work. Autonomous equipment must be programmed, monitored, maintained, repaired, transported and integrated into complex farming operations. These are safer and often better-paying jobs than many of the repetitive tasks the equipment replaces. The right policy is to help agricultural employees develop those skills, not to preserve every existing task indefinitely by law.

California can authorize autonomous agricultural equipment while adopting reasonable protections. Training and upskilling can help affected employees move into new positions. Equipment can be required to satisfy recognized safety standards, operate within designated zones, maintain incident data and include effective emergency controls.

Those protections would address legitimate worker concerns without making autonomous agriculture practically impossible.

Lead or Get Out of the Field

California prides itself on being the home of innovation. That claim rings hollow when the state welcomes agricultural technology at conferences, funds research at its universities and then bars growers from using the finished product in their fields.

The question is not whether autonomous agricultural equipment is coming. It is whether California farms will be allowed to use it before their competitors do.

Lawmakers should expressly authorize autonomous tractors and direct Cal/OSHA to establish clear, performance-based safety standards. The rules should protect workers, allow responsible deployment and give manufacturers and growers enough certainty to invest.

California can lead the next agricultural revolution, or it can regulate that revolution into another state or country. It cannot do both.

The greatest threat to California farm jobs is not an empty tractor seat. It’s an empty field.

A Tale of Two Trade Regions

October 22nd, 2026

For President Donald Trump’s second administration, international trade realignment is again one of his primary crusades. Driven by his inherent view that the country has long been taken advantage of by others, he has made the goal to “rebuild the U.S. industrial base, rebalance trade relationships, enforce reciprocity… and use America’s market power to secure better terms with trading partners.” For the fresh produce sector, the prospects for real trade gains or losses aren’t taken lightly.

As we approach the third year of this trade agenda in action, let’s compare the regional market landscapes of North America and Southeast Asia. The former obviously encompasses Canada and Mexico, the top two export markets for fresh produce collectively (fruits, vegetables and tree nuts). For the latter I highlight Vietnam and Thailand, as I had the great opportunity to travel to both countries earlier this year as part of a specialty crop technical trade mission.

Vietnam and Thailand

Southeast Asia market development is of high interest, especially as the China market dims (more on that later). Of the 11 nations that comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc, Vietnam and Thailand respectively have the third- and fourth-largest populations and similar nominal GDP levels of roughly $500 billion. While Vietnam is still dominated by traditional and smaller outlets, last year supermarkets grew 13 percent and food e-commerce grew 29 percent. Consumers are becoming more selective of food sources and ingredients, and key sectors are getting better at accommodating high-value products, including more sophisticated retail, tourism and food processing. While Thailand’s food market is farther along and more developed in all these aspects, it is still projected to grow at an average annual rate of nearly 5 percent over the next four years. Over the past decade, U.S. fresh produce exports to both countries have increased nearly 60 percent, reaching $795.7 million in 2025.

This June, a small group of industry representatives, technical experts and U.S. Department of Agriculture staff traveled overseas to meet with counterparts in the governments and private sectors. This trip was far more technical in nature than promotional and was organized and supported through the USDA Assisting Specialty Crop Exports (ASCE) Program. ASCE is a $65 million multi-year undertaking to comprehensively tackle non-tariff barriers into markets, especially missing or challenging maximum residue levels (MRL). Nearly three years in, it has arguably been one of the most effective USDA-driven efforts in some time, elevating several crop-chemistry combinations into several countries in one big swing.

We came at a time when Vietnam has been weathering public pressures to tackle corruption in government. The result has been substantial bureaucratic changes and shifting agency responsibilities, so for us there was an immediate need to understand ‘who’s on first’ now with ag import, food safety and crop protection oversight. In Thailand, there is palpable activism against pesticides domestically, including calls for the country to mirror European Union standards. As a result, the consideration of new products has stalled for years and now there could very likely be reforms to the overall registration and regulation process. Given how domestic policy changes can often impact channels for our exports, it was a timely discussion.

From our on-the-ground observations and conversations in both countries, recent U.S. policies and politics fortunately haven’t tarnished the reputation of U.S. ag products being among the safest and highest-quality in the world. From the regulatory and political officials, they were generally open to explaining how their systems work and what their goals for successful ag trade are. Conversely, they asked many questions about how the U.S. manages food, including FDA’s handling of imports and EPA’s oversight of chemicals.

The grocery stores we visited rivaled American ones in terms of quantity, variety, cleanliness and marketing, including displays and aisles dedicated exclusively to U.S.-origin products. Value-added products, tree nuts and premium fruits are overwhelmingly driving the demand. For vegetables not nearly as much, given how much is already grown domestically or is sourced much more closely from neighbors like China. While geography is possibly the greatest disadvantage, the confidence in U.S. foods’ safety is still the key advantage, and a couple off-hand remarks and presentations made mention of certain specific vegetable categories of interest that left me with some (perhaps naïve) optimism that a narrow opening for some U.S. vegetables could be possible in the future.

There were several takeaways from our six-day venture. Both countries are emboldened to strengthen their own domestic policies and economic output. Real changes have and will continue to come for the mechanisms that manage food safety, pesticides and even packaging. At the same time, there is still a constructive attitude toward current U.S. diplomacy and a desire for U.S. products. There is also active interest in multilateral trade dealings, not just bilaterals. The participation from these countries is crucial toward another ASCE initiative: creating a regional import MRL approval process within the ASEAN region.

Mexico and Canada

For all the energy and interest into Southeast Asia, it and practically every other market region in the world are still eclipsed by the sheer volume and value of the Mexican and Canadian markets combined. For 2024 and 2025, the U.S. exported $12.4 billion in fresh produce and nuts, and WG’s four home states were responsible for over 44 percent of that. For U.S. vegetables alone, 87 percent of all exports are destined for Canada and Mexico annually.

As such, we immediately took notice that these countries were among the first targeted by President Trump for higher tariffs and national security demands. All things considered, the relationship with Mexico has continued to be relatively stable and collaborative. With our neighbor to the north, it is a different story and arguably the story of the past two years.

President Trump’s words and actions toward Canada have been especially pointed, frequent and personal. The effect is that it has stirred up anti-American sentiment to a degree we are not seeing anywhere else, nor have probably seen in our lifetime. In a private conversation between California ag stakeholders and U.S.-based diplomatic officials this July, the message was clear: “It cannot be overstated just how [upset] Canadians are.” Franker language was used. Every day there is another media report interviewing Canadian retailers, describing customer demand to stock more Canadian-grown, or at least stock less of U.S.-grown. From direct talks with several WG exporting members, they have been on the receiving end of this ire directly with cancelled or reduced orders, demands that they share in added financial costs and pressure to source product grown in other countries.

Will this all blow over once this administration has moved on in two years? For comparison, January 2018 saw the first shots fired in the U.S.-China trade conflict, and two years later the Phase One deal was signed. Further focus and tariffs on China continued under the Biden Administration, and this second Trump term has again had flare-ups, cool downs and another truce since last year. All told, since 2017 the average tariff rate into China for all U.S. goods has increased from 8 percent to 31 percent. For some fresh fruits and tree nuts that previously had major inroads into China, exports have dropped 20 percent or more since 2016.

Other tree nuts had marked recoveries after the first trade war, but exports collapsed again last year when tariffs came back in the spotlight. As for the systemic non-tariff barriers that hinder greater access to China—barriers the first Trump Administration made so central to its trade agenda—the needle has simply not moved. Today, U.S. ag exports still face an additional 10 percent baseline retaliatory tariff into China that has been kept since 2018.

If history repeats itself, our industry stands to lose a lot in an unresolved U.S.-Canada conflict with little to gain. In response to initial U.S. tariff actions last year, Canada imposed a 25 percent retaliatory tariff on many U.S. products, including 12 fresh produce items. The tariff was in place only from March to July last year, but for those targeted categories there was a collective 33 percent decline when compared to the same period in 2024. If this snapshot gives us any indication as to how a broader and longer imposition of tariffs could go, it’s clear the impact would be substantial.

Even if or when the verbal sparring cools and deals are ostensibly reached, some actions and shifts will likely stay the course. In Canada there are proposals for greater self-sufficiency and moving away from the U.S. as a primary source. Its recently announced National Food Security Strategy proposes $750 million toward controlled environment agriculture to “grow more vegetables and fruits in more places, making Canada less dependent on imports of these products.” Producers understand the time and effort it takes to build relationships with buyers and consumers, and what it means to rebuild. The value of diversifying markets notwithstanding, there is simply no replacing Canada or Mexico.

We recognize the fluidity and politics surrounding international trade right now is especially heightened and sensitive. Nonetheless, WG has been vocal since day one that foreign competition is already tough in many markets, and further ruptures and lingering uncertainty give them more opportunities to keep displacing us. For these reasons we must capitalize on opportunities for new footholds in developing markets overseas, and we must diligently preserve—and build upon—what has long been established here in North America.

[Author’s Note: Cited statistics are generated from USDA and Congressional Research Service databases and sources.]

Going Beyond Lobbying: Passionate Advocacy

October 22nd, 2026

I am writing this article in the middle of September. The California Legislature has concluded their session, and we are now awaiting the Gov. Gavin Newsom’s final action on bills that made it to his desk. It has been a challenging year across the board on a range of topics, but we have had some great victories, including stopping a bill that would have further limited nitrogen applications and successfully stripping language from another bill that would have prohibited an entire class of pesticides in California. There are numerous other wins as well. Of course, many challenges are likely to be ongoing. Our team continues the work on single-use packaging, Proposition 65 regulations, numerous labor-related initiatives and a host of other regulatory proposals.

A common denominator within all of this is the dedication that our entire team brings to work every day, to do everything that we can to ensure your continued success in agriculture. If we don’t end with a successful resolution, we conduct an after-action review to see what tactics and strategies worked and which didn’t. It’s not about meeting the bare minimum to say that we lobbied a specific piece of legislation or regulation; it’s about caring for each of your businesses as if we are one of the owners. That is not something that you can train for; that is someone who naturally brings forward the passion to work hard for your success. I am proud to say that Western Growers has those colleagues, and I am blessed to work with them. We are also grateful to work alongside a group of lobbyists from other agricultural and business associations that have that same natural drive for your success.

This was quite tangible at the end of the session, as hundreds of lobbyists were swarming the Capitol rotunda in Sacramento to grab the ear of legislators and their staff to answer questions about a bill or to negotiate final amendments to protect their stakeholders’ interests. There is a difference between a lobbyist who just “shows up” to work on an issue versus a passionate advocate. I stood at the rotunda railing between meetings, watching the frenzied activity of passionate advocates working to keep your business operations running as smoothly, effectively and efficiently as possible.

It may often seem that Sacramento is a passionless place, devoid of common sense, deaf to the plight of agriculture. That is true in some corners but definitely not all. It remains our job and our calling to ensure that those who have gone deaf to agriculture’s concerns begin to truly listen again. We will not ever give up on protecting this industry that goes above and beyond every single day to feed our nation and the world. Please don’t ever believe that you are operating alone when it comes to handling legislative and regulatory issues. There is a small but mighty army of passionate advocates in Sacramento that considers themselves part of your company and your team.

Beyond Traceability: Why Solving Foodborne Outbreaks Requires a Systems Approach

October 22nd, 2026

As the familiar saying goes, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

This is one of my favorite quotes, particularly when specific outcomes are not what we desire. It may seem self-evident not to repeat mistakes, and yet, we’re all guilty of doing this very thing on more occasions than we’d like to admit. Similar to habitual behavior in our personal lives, this maxim also captures an important challenge in how we think about foodborne illness investigations today.

The food-production landscape is continually changing, including the risks we face and the tools available to identify and manage them. Global supply chains are increasingly complex, environmental conditions are shifting, pathogens and hazards are evolving and detection tools are becoming more advanced. Outbreak investigations must evolve as well so we can prevent, detect and contain foodborne illness more quickly and effectively.

Much of today’s conversation around outbreak investigations understandably focuses on traceability and how quickly can we identify a potential source or point of contamination. More rapid and detailed traceability is essential to outbreak intervention. But we must assess the broader system that encompasses outbreak investigations. The broader system, as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recognizes that foodborne outbreak investigations comprise three interconnected, fundamental streams of evidence: epidemiology, laboratory testing and traceability—components that must not only be robust on their own but also collectively.

The system is not sustainable if we only focus on strengthening one component and neglecting the others. Like a three-legged stool, the system depends on the strength and stability of all three.

Start with epidemiology. Before investigators can trace a product, they first need to determine which product they are looking for. That sounds simple enough, but it often is not. It begins with reconstructing what infected people who report their illness ate over a specified time period, including where they purchased it and what other exposures they may have had. As time passes, memories fade, receipts disappear, packaging is discarded and seemingly simple questions—What brand was it? Where did you buy it? When did you eat it?— become more difficult to answer. Collecting detailed, structured exposure information closer to the time of illness can improve patient recall, strengthen hypothesis generation and ultimately support more effective outbreak investigations. The CDC itself recognizes that investigators sometimes lack enough detail about exposures to even begin traceback.

That should prompt us to ask whether improvements in traceability need to be accompanied by improvements in how—and how quickly—we collect epidemiological information. Can standardized questionnaires be used sooner (e.g., in the doctor/clinic office)? How often are questionnaires evaluated for improvement or expansion (e.g., other possible exposure pathways)? Can technology help capture information before memories fade or disappear (e.g., streamline access to electronic purchase data from retail/food service)? Can local and state entities play a more active role in capturing relevant information earlier (e.g., use of standardized surveillance system or database)? These questions relate to the broader information-gathering system and deserve the same level of attention as traceability.

Laboratory testing brings a different set of challenges. While extremely valuable, laboratory testing has limitations in its application and relevancy. Testing is more than generating a positive or negative result. A recent paper on food safety testing highlights the importance of understanding the capabilities and limitations of sampling and testing systems so results can be appropriately interpreted and used to inform food safety decisions. First, contamination in food and the production environment is typically unevenly distributed. Second, products infected people report consuming may no longer be available when an investigation begins. Because of its relatively short shelf life, this is especially pertinent to fresh produce. In addition, only a small portion of a food, if it’s available, or the production environment can realistically be sampled. Also, as FDA has noted, a negative result does not necessarily mean contamination was absent.

Aside from testing challenges, but relevant to testing programs, research also indicates that a changing environment brings new challenges. For example, pathogen occurrence and persistence are influenced by slow, permanent changes in climate over time and transient changes such as extreme weather events (e.g., flooding, drought, wildfires, high winds). Weather-related climate changes may vary season to season or change gradually over time. Innovation in microbial detection methods and other emerging technologies can offer opportunities for sensitive and faster detection, but new technologies also require substantial research, capital investment and validation, prior to integration into surveillance systems.

So perhaps the testing conversation also needs to evolve—from simply asking, “Are we testing enough?” to asking, “Are we testing effectively and developing the science, technologies and surveillance capabilities necessary to anticipate and detect the emerging hazards we will face tomorrow?”

And then there is traceability. With the publishing of FDA’s FSMA Rule 204 on traceability, the promise of enhanced, more efficient traceability is significant. However, no grower, shipper, processor, distributor, broker, retailer or restaurant can create an effective traceback system independently. Information must remain consistent and connected to food as it moves through the supply chain. This need for continuity marks traceability as a shared supply-chain responsibility and not simply a regulatory obligation assigned to individual businesses or sectors of a supply chain.

Traceability, too, presents its own systems challenges. Companies are at different stages of implementation and have invested in different technological solutions and approaches to comply with FSMA Rule 204. As companies make decisions about which system to use and service providers build various tools, the focus, as a whole, should be on system interoperability, data quality and best practices that allow information to move safely and efficiently across the supply chain. Ultimately, no single supply chain segment can make traceability successful on its own; its value depends on shared responsibility and a coordinated farm-to-fork effort.

The real opportunity before us is to strengthen all three legs of the stool and how they work together.

After every outbreak, rather than focusing on traceability improvements or immediately looking for someone to blame, we should be asking where information was lost, where time was lost, if investigations were driven by the data or by assumptions and how the connections among epidemiology, laboratory testing and traceability can be strengthened.

Finding the source of an implicated food is not the same as solving an outbreak. Traceability may help investigators follow the trail, and recalls may help contain the risk, but neither can stand alone. Effective outbreak investigations require epidemiology, laboratory evidence and traceability to work together—not only to identify the problem, but also to understand it, contain it and prevent similar issues in the future.

Earlier and more consistent exposure-data collection could improve the accuracy and completeness of the information available to investigators, helping them develop stronger hypotheses. At the same time, the testing conversation must evolve and focus on advancing the science, knowledge, technologies and surveillance capabilities needed to maximize its value. Combined with better traceability, these efforts could accelerate source identification and improve outbreak response.

The goal for both industry and regulators should not simply be faster traceback. Traceback speed matters, but the larger goal should be a faster-learning, more efficient and effective food safety system—one capable of detecting potential signals sooner, forming better hypotheses and testing them with the best available science; tracing products rapidly through an interconnected and often complex supply chain; taking proportionate action to protect consumers; and, most importantly, using what is learned to prevent future foodborne illness outbreaks.

A Century of Innovation in the Field

October 22nd, 2026

How growers have used mechanization, automation and robotics to keep agriculture productive, resilient and sustainable

For 100 years, Western Growers members have faced the same fundamental challenge: produce more food of higher quality, with limited land, water, labor and time. The tools have changed dramatically, but the grower’s mindset has not. Growers observe a problem, test a solution, measure the result and improve the system. Long before anyone used the term “agtech,” growers were already innovators.

That history matters. Agriculture’s technological progress is sometimes described as though innovation arrived recently from outside the farm. In reality, many of the industry’s most important advances succeeded because growers adapted them to commercial conditions. Tractors, precision planters, mechanical harvesters, refrigerated transportation, drip irrigation and improved genetics all became valuable only after growers proved where they fit, changed their operations and accepted the risk of doing something differently.

Innovation Across Crops

Consider the evolution of California almonds. Shakers, sweepers and pickup machines transformed harvest from a labor-intensive process into a coordinated mechanical system. Microirrigation, soil-moisture monitoring and pressure-compensating emitters later gave growers far greater control over when and where water and nutrients were applied. In table grapes, trellis design, canopy management, field packing and cold-chain improvements increased quality and helped fruit travel farther while arriving in better condition.

The lettuce industry tells an equally powerful story. A century ago, lettuce was packed in wooden crates, top-iced and shipped east by rail. Better railcars, refrigeration, vacuum cooling, packaging and logistics expanded markets and changed what consumers could expect from fresh produce. None of those advances was a novelty for its own sake. Each solved a grower problem: shelf life, quality, labor, distance or cost.

Genetics has been just as important as steel and electronics. Plant breeders have improved yield, uniformity, shelf life, flavor and resistance to pests and disease. In apples and stone fruit, genetics combined with dwarfing rootstocks and two-dimensional trellis systems is creating narrower, more uniform canopies. Those systems improve light distribution and worker access while making precision spraying, mechanical pruning and future robotic harvesting more achievable.

Doing More with Water Inputs and Information

Irrigation may be the clearest example of technology becoming a management system. Permanent-crop growers moved from broad applications toward drip and micro-sprinklers, then added weather data, soil and plant sensors, remote valves, telemetry and variable-rate control. The objective is not simply to use less water. It is to place the right amount in the right location at the right time to protect yield, quality and long-term orchard or vineyard health.

That capability has become more important as regulation has grown more complex. Under requirements such as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), growers need better information about pumping, allocation and crop demand. Digital records also support nutrient management, pesticide applications, traceability and compliance reporting. Technology cannot remove regulation, but it can reduce the time and uncertainty required to manage it—and help growers document responsible practices with defensible data.

From Hand Crews to Plant Level Decisions

In bedded vegetable production, innovation begins before the crop emerges. Growers choose between direct seeding and transplants based on crop, season, cost, stand establishment and harvest goals. Precision planters and improved transplanters have increased uniformity, which matters because nearly every downstream operation works better when plants are consistently spaced.

Thinning and weeding show how quickly field work can change. Hand crews once made nearly every plant-selection decision with a hoe. Today, automated thinners use cameras and targeted treatments to establish the desired spacing. Automated weeders combine mechanical tools, precision sprays, lasers or other energy sources with vision systems that distinguish crop from weed. These machines do more than replace a task. They can reduce crop injury, target inputs and create a repeatable record of field performance while helping growers manage rising labor costs and limited crew availability.

Crop protection is expanding beyond conventional application methods as well. Ultraviolet-C systems are being evaluated and deployed in selected crops to suppress powdery mildew, offering another tool alongside synthetic chemistry, biological products and cultural practices. Drones now scout fields, map variability, identify stressed areas and, where the crop and rules allow, apply inputs to targeted locations. Handheld and in-line instruments measure Brix, firmness, color and other quality attributes, turning experience into data that can guide harvest timing, packing and marketing decisions.

The Digital Turning Point

The mid-2010s marked a new chapter. Mechanization traditionally performed the same physical action across a row. Computer vision and machine learning allowed a machine to see individual plants, classify what it saw and respond in real time. Blue River Technology helped demonstrate this transition through LettuceBot and the technology that became See & Spray. The significance was larger than one machine: agriculture was moving from field-level averages toward plant-level decisions.

The Next Frontier

That progress should make us optimistic, but not complacent. Some of agriculture’s most valuable crops still depend on people for the most difficult and physically demanding work. Strawberries, table grapes, avocados and citrus remain challenging because fruit can be hidden, delicate, variable in maturity and difficult to reach. A successful harvester must recognize the right fruit, remove it without damage, maintain quality, move through commercial fields and deliver an economic return during a short harvest window.

The next century of innovation will not be defined by robots alone. It will be defined by how well technology fits the biology of the crop and the economics of the farm. Growers will continue to be the proving ground. We will ask whether a tool performs reliably, protects quality, reduces risk and produces a measurable return. That is the same practical standard growers applied to iced railcars, mechanical almond harvest and drip irrigation—and it is why agriculture will continue to innovate.

Western Growers’ first 100 years show that technology does not transform farming by itself. Growers transform farming by putting technology to work.

A Tale of Two Cities: Specialty Crop Agriculture 2040

October 22nd, 2026

For decades, California has been the center of specialty crop agriculture for the U.S. and much of the world, growing fruits, nuts and vegetables for Californians, Americans and international consumers. The Mediterranean climate was perfectly suited to many specialty crops, and the microclimates within the state allowed growers to choose growing slots that fit an increasingly common 12-month production calendar, allowing retailers to show consumers that they could get the same produce items every week of the year (whether or not they knew it was grown in different locations). Consumers, retailers and producers got used to the week-to-week availability, and growers increasingly built operations for scale. Many got vertically integrated and handled growing operations, processing facilities and supply chain logistics. As specialty crops got recognized as being a great source of healthy food, many went through surges in popularity—including strawberries, avocados and almonds—and California growers continued to support the new demand. New restaurant chains created growth in the food service category, and some growers chose to focus on that and other market opportunities.

Then, as the 1990s and 2000s came into frame, things got more challenging. The never-ending set of cost challenges California growers faced led to many growers choosing to relocate acreage outside of California, often to neighboring states like Arizona and increasingly to international locations like Mexico and Peru. California retained a first-mover advantage in a lot of key crops and built systems for scale, including logistics and processing facilities. But many crops that have a significant percentage of their costs tied up with labor relocated and never came back. In addition, regulatory cost increases from $109/acre/year to $1,600/acre/ year over 18 years forced many smaller farmers to exit the business. On top of that, challenges created by the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) are forcing growers to reconsider permanent crops like almond trees and wine grapes in light of a possible fallow allocation by an SGMA quasi-government agency. Rotational crops like processing tomatoes are often becoming a better fit than permanent crops when increased risk of a fallow allocation, which forces you to stop farming some acreage, is taken into account.

If you analyze the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census data from 1997 to 2022 and then perform some straight-line estimates through 2052, you can see the damage that has already been caused and the damage that is likely to be caused in the next 25 years. The short version—California is projected to lose 32 percent of acreage and 52 percent of growers from 1997 to 2052. This is where the “Tale of Two Cities” becomes apparent. Will California be able to make enough changes to retain irrigated acreage well above the forecast and keep all the benefits that go with the acreage (ag jobs, agtech jobs, new high-skilled jobs to sell and support the new agtech that keeps the acreage local)? Or will California move too slowly or not at all and turn the forecast projections into a baseline scenario that ends up looking optimistic? From my perspective, that answer hinges largely on one variable—how much automation can be developed at scale to improve the economics to help keep the acreage in California?

Labor has been an ongoing problem in terms of both cost and availability for California (and increasingly for other growing regions in the U.S.). Availability was addressed in part by the H-2A program, which created an access path for international farmworkers to come into California on temporary or seasonal work visas. This added costs because those workers were paid an AEWR (adverse effect wage rate—designed to give the advantage to domestic farmworkers, who could work for less than AEWR) and growers had transportation, food and lodging costs to manage for all H-2A workers. Current costs in California are estimated at $30 to $32/ hour for H-2A workers, and H-2A usage in California has tripled in six years, represents 10 percent of the farm workforce and is forecast to continue rising because there is an increasingly small pool of domestic farmworkers applying for these jobs. The 2024 numbers—growers paid $16.3 billion for 850 million farm labor hours.

So, automation is the best and truly only scalable way to solve the labor challenges. One-third of those hours comprise non-harvest activities (weeding, thinning, spraying, harvest assist, autonomous mobility), which are 3 percent to 5 percent automated and forecast to get to 16 percent to 20 percent automated by 2030. Two-thirds are on harvest activities and less than 1 percent of that is currently automated. With venture capital declining by 70 percent from 2021 to 2025 (from $54 billion to $16 billion), harvest is going to struggle to attract additional venture capital because it is a small addressable market (each crop needs its own robot—compared to weeding where one robot can do dozens of crop types), and building harvest robots is really tough (turns out that replicating the skilled farmworker’s ability to look at a field, identify the fruits and vegetables that are ready to be picked, pick them and place them into a container without damaging them is pretty hard). This lack of capital, combined with these aforementioned difficulties, will continue to make harvest solutions challenging. Western Growers is working with our partners at Reservoir Farms and John Deere to help harvest and other automation startups reduce their time and capital needed to get through R&D to first commercial product, and that does make it easier—but not easy.

All of the above is why the most important number in specialty crop automation is not the venture capital total the segment receives. No, it’s the amount of revenue the startups are able to deliver annually. Venture capital helps startups stay alive and build products—and ideally get to commercialization and scale. But the more accurate indicator of how the economics are working for local ag communities is the revenue number. This is the number that makes sure local jobs are created. I mentioned above that we have a clear path to $1 billion in automation revenue by 2030 based on the $3 billion in automation revenue investments already made in the last 10 years.

In a similar fashion, if you model out the next 10 years, even with the 70 percent reduction, there is likely to be $7 to $8 billion in venture capital into agrifoodtech over the next 10 years. Historically, I expect agtech to be like most tech segments—the first billion is the hardest, as infrastructure is built that can be reused by future investment dollars to grow the category more capital-efficiently. With $7 to $8 billion in additional VC, an additional $2 to $2.5 billion in revenue would be generated. On top of the $1 billion forecast by 2030 (which will grow past 2030—likely to $1.5 to $2.0 billion by 2035), the total agtech automation revenue forecast for 2035 is somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion. If we use the midpoint of $4.5 billion in 2035 automation revenue, that will create an additional $1 billion-plus of opportunities in systems integration and data/analytics solutions. All of this will create tens of thousands of jobs, many of them in rural areas where the automation solutions will be sold, serviced and supported. These will be highly skilled rural jobs with agtech skills required.

The tale of the second city happens if California is unable to make some key policy changes. Acreage is already moving to Mexico and South America, where California’s $30 to $32/hour H-2A labor contrasts with domestic $4/hour labor. Peru is investing $24 billion in private-public partnership funding to develop 22 surface water storage projects while California struggles to put a shovel in the ground and get the $6.2 billion needed to build Sites Reservoir to put the start line into play. Peru and China built the $3.6 billion Chancay Port—which cuts 10 to 20 days off logistics for much of the produce that goes from Peru and other parts of South America to China and Asia. Finally, Peru has publicly stated an objective to develop 1 million hectares (2.47 million acres) of additional irrigated ground to help push their ag exports to $40 billion by 2040.

My forecast is that Peru passes the ag export total for California in 2035. That’s the horror story tale of the other city—what if Peru executes on not all, but just most of the plans laid out above? How will California respond, and will it be fast enough to protect the decades of agricultural production, processing facilities and supply chain expertise that is already here? California growers are the best growers and entrepreneurs in the world—they have to be to continue growing here. It’s not going to be their fault if the second city becomes the actual scenario.

Small but Mighty: The Benefits of Nuts and Seeds

October 22nd, 2026

They may be small enough to fit in the palm of your hand, but nuts and seeds pack an impressive nutritional punch. Almonds, walnuts, pecans, pistachios, cashews, peanuts, Brazil nuts, hazelnuts, chia seeds, flaxseeds, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds and hemp seeds can all contribute valuable nutrients to a balanced diet.

Best of all, nuts and seeds are remarkably easy to eat. They can be sprinkled, stirred, blended, toasted or enjoyed by the handful. Whether added to breakfast, tossed into a salad or eaten as an afternoon snack, these little foods offer a convenient combination of healthy fats, plant protein, fiber, vitamins, minerals and beneficial plant compounds.

One of the best-known benefits of nuts and seeds is their contribution to a heart-healthy diet. Many varieties contain unsaturated fats, including monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Walnuts, chia seeds and flaxseeds are also notable plant sources of omega-3 fatty acids.

Replacing foods high in saturated fat with foods rich in unsaturated fats can help support healthy cholesterol levels. Nuts and seeds also provide other heart-friendly nutrients, including fiber, magnesium, potassium and naturally occurring antioxidants.

Walnuts are an especially popular choice for adding to oatmeal, salads and baked goods. Almonds, pistachios, pecans and hazelnuts are other flavorful options that can bring both nutrition and satisfying crunch to a meal.

Fiber is another reason nuts and seeds deserve a regular place on the menu. Dietary fiber supports healthy digestion and can help you feel satisfied after eating. Chia and flaxseeds are particularly noteworthy sources of fiber, but almonds, pistachios, sunflower seeds and pumpkin seeds contribute fiber as well. Because fiber slows digestion, adding nuts or seeds to a meal or snack may make it more satisfying.

Chia seeds are especially versatile because they absorb liquid and develop a gel-like texture. They can be stirred into overnight oats, yogurt, smoothies or homemade chia pudding. Ground flaxseed is another easy addition to oatmeal, cereal, smoothies and baked goods.

Nuts and seeds are useful sources of plant protein, making them especially valuable for anyone looking to include more plant-based foods in their diet. Peanuts, almonds, pistachios, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds and hemp seeds are among the many choices that contribute protein.

Protein plays an important role in maintaining and repairing muscles and other tissues. It also contributes to fullness, which is one reason a snack containing nuts or seeds can be more satisfying than one made primarily from refined carbohydrates.

Nut and seed butters offer another convenient option. Peanut, almond, cashew, sunflower seed and sesame-based spreads can be paired with fruit, whole-grain bread, crackers or vegetables.

Different nuts and seeds bring different nutritional strengths to the table. Almonds are known for vitamin E, an antioxidant nutrient. Brazil nuts are exceptionally rich in selenium, while pumpkin seeds provide nutrients such as magnesium and zinc. Sesame seeds contain minerals including calcium and copper, and sunflower seeds provide vitamin E along with several other nutrients.

Cashews provide minerals including copper and magnesium, while pistachios contain potassium, vitamin B6 and antioxidants. Walnuts stand out for their plant-based omega-3 content, and chia and flaxseeds offer a combination of fiber and omega-3 fats.

In other words, variety matters. Rotating between different nuts and seeds instead of relying on only one type can provide a broader assortment of nutrients— and keep meals more interesting.

Good nutrition doesn’t always require dramatic changes. Sometimes it is as simple as sprinkling pumpkin seeds over a salad, stirring ground flaxseed into breakfast, adding walnuts to oatmeal or choosing a handful of almonds or pistachios for a snack.

With their combination of healthy fats, fiber, plant protein, vitamins, minerals and beneficial plant compounds, nuts and seeds offer a remarkable amount of nutrition in a small package. Eating a variety, from familiar peanuts and almonds to chia, hemp, sesame and pumpkin seeds is an easy way to bring more flavor, texture and nutritional variety to everyday meals.

Small foods can make a meaningful contribution to a healthy eating pattern, and nuts and seeds are proof that sometimes good things really do come in small packages.

Connections, Connections, Connections: Celebrating Edwin Camp, the Western Growers 2026 Award of Honor Recipient

October 22nd, 2026

When Edwin Camp learned he had been selected as Western Growers’ 2026 Award of Honor recipient, the news came from a familiar voice.

Rob Yraceburu, a longtime friend and Western Growers Board Chair, called to deliver the good word. Camp explained that in typical Yraceburu fashion, he joked that it had taken about 12 votes to finally get him selected.

“I’m surprised it didn’t take more,” Camp shot back.

Although he had no particular desire to make a fuss about himself, Camp understood the significance of the honor. “I was honored but flabbergasted,” he said.

It is a fitting reaction for a man who has spent much of his career doing the work rather than seeking recognition for it.

For more than five decades, Camp has been part of California agriculture as a farmer, CEO, businessman, water leader and industry advocate. He served 30 years on the Western Growers Board, including as Chair, and spent decades working on some of the most complicated water issues facing farmers in the San Joaquin Valley.

But when asked about the accomplishment that means the most to him, Camp doesn’t start with a board position, a business milestone or a policy victory. He talks about people.

“The most meaningful would be just the honor of working with all of the people I’ve been able to work with,” he said.

That answer says a lot about Camp and the way he views agriculture. The issues may be water, labor, regulation, food safety or costs, but the work is ultimately about people and what happens to them when those issues are left unresolved.

Choosing the Farm

Camp’s path into agriculture wasn’t necessarily where he thought he was headed. He grew up in a farming family in the Shafter area and had worked in the family business from a young age.

But as a young adult, he wanted to do something different. He enrolled at the University of Southern California as a pre-med student, thinking he might become a doctor. Then came a summer when he changed his mind and decided to get back into farming, so he enrolled at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, where he studied crop science.

The decision to return to the family business was made easier by something his father told him and his brothers while they were in college.

Their father was, in his own words, a demanding taskmaster. But he also gave Camp and his brothers something Camp considers particularly important: a choice. If they wanted to return to farming, that was fine. If they wanted to do something else, that was fine, too.

“I had a lot of friends who were forced, or they were expected to come back to the farm,” Camp said. “But when you make your own decision, that’s completely different.”

Camp chose farming. He officially began working full-time at D.M. Camp & Sons in 1979 after college, although his wife, Kaye, would argue that his career began much earlier.

Today, D.M. Camp & Sons is celebrating its 90th year. Almonds are the mainstay of the family’s farming operation, while the business also includes four John Deere dealerships in Kern and Los Angeles counties and a John Deere engine distributorship covering five Western states.

The Water Job

For a Kern County farmer, water is impossible to separate from agriculture, Camp explained.

“I always said I had two jobs,” he said. “I had my farming job, and I had my water job.”

Camp’s farming operation was exposed to several different sources of water—state, federal and Kern River water—giving him an early education in the complicated systems, contracts and politics that determine where water goes and who gets it.

He became involved in water district leadership, including at the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, and eventually served on the Friant Water Authority Board.

He recently retired after 38 years as President of the Arvin- Edison Water Storage District Board and 13 years on the Friant Water Authority Board. He remains involved in water policy as a delegate to the Great Valley Farm Water Partnership.

Camp was initially drawn to the complexity of water.

“It was fascinating to me,” he said. “The water world is endless.”

But fascination alone doesn’t explain why he stayed with it for so long. Camp understood that serving on a water board meant representing farmers and landowners whose businesses and livelihoods could be directly affected by decisions made around a table.

At Arvin-Edison, the mantra was simple: “Connections, connections, connections,” he said.

The district worked to establish connections between water systems, including the California Aqueduct, Cross Valley Canal, Friant-Kern Canal and Kern River.

“Those connections created options. Water could be moved. It could be stored. Partnerships could be developed,” Camp said.

And he believes California still suffers from not having enough of those connections.

“We’re missing connections,” he said. “We never completed the connections we should have had to be able to move things around to their most needed or proper places.”

Some of the most consequential decisions he was involved in grew out of that philosophy.

One example was Arvin-Edison’s agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to store Metropolitan’s water in the district. The arrangement drew criticism at the time, and Camp remembers opponents saying the district was effectively “dealing with the devil.”

But Camp saw it differently. Metropolitan would pay for facilities as well as the storage and pumping of its water. The infrastructure would also provide benefits to Arvin-Edison.

The important part, Camp explained, was making sure the contracts were structured so everyone understood the rules and there was no opportunity for anyone to play games later. The controversial arrangement went on to become a long-term success.

“It was another example of why water leadership requires more than knowing the rules. Sometimes, it requires being willing to take criticism and pursue an idea that isn’t popular,” Camp said.

Three Decades with Western Growers

Camp’s relationship with Western Growers stretches back more than three decades. He joined the organization’s Board of Directors in 1994 and served as Chair in 2003. His family business has been a Western Growers member for more than five decades.

What kept him involved for so long was Western Growers’ ability to take on difficult issues and “actually do something” about them.

“Western Growers was an organization that could take on the hard things and affect them,” he said.

He remembers traveling to Washington, D.C., during Tom Nassif ’s early years as President and watching Western Growers work to raise the profile of specialty crops in federal policy. That work was important to Camp because California’s agricultural landscape doesn’t fit neatly into the traditional federal focus on commodities, such as corn, soybeans and wheat.

“The West has a different mix of crops, climates, soils and challenges. Water, labor, regulation and production costs can look very different for a specialty crop grower,” he said.

Camp appreciated that Western Growers was willing to put people and resources behind those issues, even when doing so was difficult.

“When Western Growers came to town for a meeting, training or other event, it wasn’t simply another meeting on the calendar,” Camp said. “It was for a purpose. That was always Western Growers. It was always meaningful and helpful.”

What Agriculture Gave Him

Despite all the challenges, Camp doesn’t sound like a man who regrets choosing agriculture.

His father taught him early that farming is a business and that a farmer shouldn’t become so attached to a piece of property that he is unwilling to change. Camp also learned that agriculture can be a lifestyle. And for him, it was a good one.

He raised his family on the farm. Kaye, whom he describes as a “city girl,” came to love farm life, too. Now, their grandchildren get that same exposure when they visit.

“There is also something satisfying about producing something tangible,” Camp said. “Most of the world is service oriented. We’re still creating food, making food.”

And of course, there are the people.

As a high school student, Camp helped manage the graders in the family’s potato shed. He joked that the workers knew far more about the job than he did and probably laughed among themselves while he tried to manage them.

Those workers were largely families who had come to California from Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas, many of them Dust Bowl families who arrived with very little.

Later, the family’s workforce became largely Hispanic. Camp saw the same qualities he had admired in those earlier generations: hard work, loyalty and a desire to provide better opportunities for their families.

He watched the children of workers grow up and pursue careers of their own. Some became attorneys. Others entered professional fields. One became Camp’s dentist.

Those relationships have stayed with him and remain a part of what agriculture makes possible—not only food, but opportunity.

Still Showing Up

Camp has spent a lifetime working in an industry that rarely offers easy answers, and yet he remains engaged.

Western Growers President and CEO Dave Puglia described Camp as “the man in the arena,” pointing to his deep understanding of California’s complicated water systems and his ability to build trust among people with competing interests. That trust has been built over decades.

Camp’s own measure of success is a little less grand. It is whether the people working together managed, every once in a while, to move the needle.

He didn’t set out to become a prominent figure in California agriculture. As a young man, in fact, he seemed set on becoming a doctor.

Instead, his path took him somewhere else. And then, over the decades, he kept choosing to stay the course.

Perhaps that is the best way to understand Camp’s legacy. He has spent a lifetime showing up for his family, his business, his community, his fellow farmers and an industry that, in his own words, still “makes something.”

For a farmer, perhaps there is no better legacy than that.

California’s Agricultural Commissioners at Work

October 22nd, 2026

If you were to ask a room full of children what they want to be when they grow up, you would likely hear answers, such as doctor, astronaut, athlete, maybe even influencer in this modern age driven by social media. Chances are, “agricultural commissioner” won’t make the list.

Yet many of the men and women who eventually find themselves in these roles arrive there through a shared passion for agriculture. Whether they grew up on farms, loved animals as a kid or discovered agriculture through their careers, many are driven by the same goal: supporting and protecting California’s most vital industry.

Tulare County Assistant Agricultural Commissioner Christopher Greer was born and raised in the county he now represents, embodying that very dedication.

“I always grew up around agriculture,” said Greer. “I lived down the road from my family’s dairy farm, was heavily involved in Future Farmers of America in school and went on to be on a national judging team for dairy in college.”

After graduating from Fresno State University with a degree in agricultural business, he took a trainee position as an Agricultural Standards Inspector with Tulare County. Over time, he learned more about laws and regulations as he continued down this career path—and the road to commissioner is not a short one.

“To be able to move up through the ranks, there are quite a few exams we have to take. There are eight inspector exams, licensing exams through the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), then there are written and oral exams for deputy commissioner and then again for the Commissioner Sealer exam. So, you have to pass all these exams to even be qualified for the position.”

The scope of the position is nothing if not extensive. County offices administer programs related to pest prevention and exclusion, export certification, crop statistics, weights and measures, apiary protection, nursery inspection and consumer protection, among others—making the commissioner’s office one of the broadest and most practical resources available to California growers.

In Tulare County, one of the nation’s most productive agricultural regions, those responsibilities are amplified by the sheer volume and diversity of agricultural production.

“We have over 44 commodities that produce more than a million dollars in gross production,” said Greer. “Not only do we grow so much, but we’re also a hub for a lot of the surrounding counties.”

According to Greer, Tulare County exports products to approximately 90 countries and issues roughly 33,000 phytosanitary certificates each year. Required by many foreign governments, these certificates verify that agricultural shipments meet importing countries’ plant health requirements. Without them, products don’t move.

In neighboring Fresno County, Agricultural Commissioner Melissa Cregan explained what many growers may not realize is that California is unique in how that certification process works: the county commissioner’s office certifies shipments at their origin.

“Our staff actually writes all of those export certificates for everything going to all the various countries that it gets shipped to,” said Cregan.

Most states, by comparison, inspect and certify agricultural products at the port of exit. By that time, if problems are discovered, growers may have already incurred transportation costs and logistical challenges.

“You don’t want to ship your product all the way to the port, have them inspect it, and then find something that’s not going to allow it to be exported to that country,” said Cregan. “And now what do you do with it?”

By certifying shipments at the source, commissioners help growers avoid costly disruptions while keeping agricultural products moving efficiently through domestic and international supply chains.

This is just one example of how California’s system of having a dedicated ag commissioner for each county allows growers to have a more localized support system.

The Front Lines of Defense

Facilitating trade is just one important function of the office; much of a commissioner’s day-to-day work centers on protecting crops from pests and diseases that threaten agricultural production.

Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner Juan Hidalgo, who also served in the same role in Santa Cruz County for seven years, oversees one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world. With more than 150 commodities grown across the county and a growing season that stretches nearly year-round, preventing the spread of pests and diseases remains a constant priority.

“Staying engaged and communicating is a must,” said Hidalgo. “Conversations around regulation can be difficult, but at the end of the day, we want to make sure growers have all the information they need to make sure they’re in compliance.”

Hidalgo explained, “If growers don’t begin to take the steps necessary to control pest and disease pressure early on, it can really have significant impacts later in the summer and fall months, because that pressure just continues to build.”

One growing concern for the region is diamondback moth (DBM), a pest that attacks brassica crops. Hidalgo said current pesticide tools have become less effective against the pest, prompting the county to work with state and industry partners to expedite approval of new chemistries while exploring biological and mechanical control options.

“This science would help our growers combat DBM in the future and give us some reprieve as industry experts continue to develop other tools that can help deter the pest,” said Hidalgo.

Monterey County also maintains a unique local ordinance designed to combat lettuce mosaic virus (LMV). Each December, a two-week host-free period prohibits lettuce planting throughout the county, reducing opportunities for the disease to persist and spread. Hidalgo’s office is responsible for ensuring growers are aware of and comply with the requirement each season.

“Growers have a tremendous responsibility to feed our nation, and we want to be sure we are doing the educational outreach necessary to make sure everyone is on the same page for compliance,” said Hidalgo.

For commissioners, however, pest management is not only about responding to current threats; it’s about preventing future ones.

Greer pointed to the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), an invasive insect that spreads Huanglongbing (HLB), also known as citrus greening disease, as a clear example of why early detection and coordinated response efforts matter.

The disease has devastated citrus production in Florida, where the industry continues to struggle with its long-term impacts. In California, commissioners are on the front lines of monitoring, grower coordination and early response efforts aimed at preventing the disease from gaining the same foothold.

Tulare County alone maintains more than 10,000 insect traps at any given time as part of that effort.

“Sadly, we have it in California, but we are fighting hard to keep it at bay,” said Greer.

While the threats facing Monterey County’s vegetable industry may differ from those confronting Tulare County’s citrus growers, the underlying mission remains the same: identify risks early, providing growers with the tools and information they need and protecting agricultural production before problems become widespread.

58 Counties, One Mission

The role of an ag commissioner looks a little different in every corner of the state, which is precisely why California relies on this county-based system.

Cregan, outgoing president of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA), said balancing these local needs with statewide consistency is one of the profession’s greatest challenges—and one of its greatest strengths.

“Uniformity can be difficult because we all have different commodities and different sized counties,” said Cregan.

CACASA helps bridge those differences by bringing commissioners representing all 58 counties together to coordinate enforcement, discuss emerging issues and share how statewide decisions affect individual regions. The association divides the state into five area groups that meet monthly, giving commissioners and their deputies an opportunity to exchange best practices and address challenges before they become larger problems.

“It brings us all together,” said Cregan. “It provides the forum to share those impacts and discuss how statewide decisions affect counties that may be very different from one another.”

While enforcement remains an important part of the job, all three commissioners emphasized that compliance, not citations, is the ultimate goal.

County offices regularly host educational workshops, continuing education opportunities and regulatory updates while also serving as a resource for growers seeking guidance on specific questions.

In Tulare County, Greer’s team hosts “Pest Day,” an annual community event that drew around 450 attendees this year, including growers, school district staff, applicators, farmworkers and community members, for a half-day of education on current pest pressures, regulations and safe chemical handling.

“We’re very committed to helping folks stay educated and be in compliance,” said Greer.

That philosophy shapes much of the day-to-day interaction between commissioners’ offices and growers.

Greer said many growers are surprised to learn commissioners are willing to provide assistance—even informal, compliance-focused walkthroughs—before problems arise. In his 15 years in the field, he said that offer has never once overwhelmed an office with calls. He’d welcome the day it does.

“If everything comes up and we roll up to an inspection and everything’s great, that means we’re doing something right on education and continuing outreach,” said Greer.

Cregan echoed that sentiment, encouraging growers to view their local commissioner’s office as a partner rather than simply an enforcement agency.

“I would love to see a relationship with our farming community where they look at us as a resource of knowledge and are willing to come ask those questions,” she said.

As California agriculture continues to navigate evolving regulations, emerging pest threats and growing public scrutiny, agricultural commissioners remain one of the industry’s most pivotal support systems.

Their work touches nearly every stage of production, from helping prevent invasive pests and diseases to facilitating exports, ensuring marketplace fairness and providing growers with the tools and information needed to remain compliant and competitive.

Much of that work happens quietly, and success is often measured by what doesn’t happen: a pest outbreak that never spreads, a shipment that reaches its destination without delay or a grower who avoids a costly compliance issue because they asked a question before a problem developed.

Greer insisted that growers should know their commissioner by name—and shouldn’t hesitate to call.

“Do you know your ag commissioner? You should. Call them up; they’ll do whatever you need. That’s their job.”

At its core, the mission, as Greer puts it, has never changed: to protect and promote agriculture, and to support the growers who make California’s food system possible.

Note: California growers looking to better understand the resources available to them are encouraged to contact their local county agricultural commissioner’s office or visit the CACASA website.

What I Saw in the Fields Changed the Way I See My Food

October 22nd, 2026

We can all agree that strawberries are a good-looking fruit. Their bright red color against the green leaves practically screams “sweet and juicy.”

For most of my life, that was exactly how I shopped for them. I would walk down the grocery store aisle scanning clamshell after clamshell, looking for the reddest, plumpest, most perfect-looking berries. No discoloration. No odd shapes. No imperfections. If I was spending money on them, why wouldn’t I pick the best-looking package in the bunch?

I never thought much about what happened before that clamshell reached the store.

That changed about two years ago when I joined Western Growers as Marketing Manager.

Before working here, my understanding of agriculture was pretty general: someone grows the food, it gets shipped to a store and I buy it. Simple, right? And when something wasn’t available, or when the price was higher than I expected, I noticed that. What I didn’t think about were all the decisions, people and circumstances that came before that moment.

I had no reason to. The food was simply there.

My role at Western Growers has given me the opportunity to visit many of our members and tour their farming operations. I’ve walked fields, visited packing facilities, watched harvest crews work, seen new technology being tested and asked growers probably more questions than they expected from the marketing person visiting for the day.

And every single time, I’ve walked away with a greater appreciation for what it takes to put food on our tables.

One of my earliest memories was visiting a strawberry operation on the Central Coast. The landscape was beautiful, with rows and rows of strawberries stretching across the field. But what really caught my attention were the people harvesting them.

I watched as they moved quickly down the rows, selecting berries and packing them directly into the same type of clamshell I had picked through countless times at the grocery store. Each package looked carefully arranged. Watching from the outside, I knew it was physical work. But I’ll admit that a thought crossed my mind: How hard can packing strawberries really be?

Then they let us try.

We got our boots into the field and attempted to fill the clamshells ourselves. Except you couldn’t just throw strawberries into a container. They had to be selected and arranged properly, all while moving at a pace that made our attempts look painfully slow.

Suddenly, that perfectly packed clamshell looked different.

I thought about shoppers like me standing in a grocery store, passing over one package because a berry looked a little funny or another package looked slightly better. Meanwhile, someone had worked quickly and skillfully to harvest that fruit and pack it by hand.

It was one of those seemingly small experiences that sticks with you.

And there have been many of them since.

I’ve spoken with farmworkers whose specialized knowledge follows the harvest. During a watermelon harvest, I learned about crews who begin in the Coachella Valley around May and work their way north, eventually reaching Los Banos, Calif., as the season continues into October.

Their job isn’t simply to walk through a field and pick the biggest watermelon. They know how to read the crop and determine which fruit is actually ready to harvest. They move through the field looking for signs that most of us would never notice.

Before seeing it firsthand, I didn’t even know that was a specialized job.

That realization has repeated itself throughout my time at Western Growers. Agriculture is full of people who know how to do things I never knew someone had to know how to do.

There are people who can look at a crop and recognize exactly when it is ready. People who can harvest and pack produce with a speed and precision that comes from experience. People managing food safety, labor, logistics and equipment. There are scientists and entrepreneurs developing technology to solve problems most consumers will never know existed.

And then there are the growers themselves.

Some have shared stories that go back generations. They talk about the people who came before them, the operation they are responsible for today and, in many cases, the hope of passing something meaningful on to the next generation. At the same time, they are navigating labor shortages, regulations, weather, water, rising costs, market conditions and countless other variables that can change from one season to the next.

What has stayed with me most is the way they talk about it.

There is pride, but rarely in a flashy way. It comes through when they talk about what they grow, the people who work alongside them and the land they are responsible for. They know how difficult the work can be, and they keep doing it anyway.

It has given me a new sense of pride in my own work, too. My role is a very small piece of a much larger industry, but now I understand the people on the other side of the stories we tell, the events we promote and the work Western Growers does every day. I’ve stood in their fields. I’ve listened to their concerns. I’ve seen what they are trying to protect and what they are trying to build.

There are dozens of experiences I could share. I could write about the technology and automation I’ve seen in the field, the packing facilities I’ve walked through or the conversations that have stayed with me long after a tour ended. At some point, though, this article would become a book.

What all of those experiences have taught me is surprisingly simple: food looks different once you understand what it takes to grow it.

I still find myself looking for the best strawberries at the grocery store. I’m still a consumer, after all. But now that clamshell represents more than what I see through the plastic.

I see the person moving through the field selecting the fruit. I think about the skill it takes to pack it. I think about the grower making decisions months before I ever walk into the store. I think about weather, water, labor, transportation and all the other things that had to go right for those strawberries to be sitting in front of me.

Most of all, I think about the people.

So, to the growers who have indulged my curiosity, answered my questions and taken time out of already busy days to show me what you do: thank you. Thank you for letting me into your fields, facilities and operations and giving me a firsthand look behind the scenes of agriculture.

You gave me something I wasn’t expecting when I took this job. You changed my perspective on food.

Agriculture can feel distant when your closest interaction with it is the produce aisle. But food is one of the few things every single one of us depends on every day. There is an entire world of people, knowledge and effort behind something we so easily place in our shopping carts.

Sometimes, it takes getting your boots in the field to finally see it.

Building a More Reliable Water Future

October 22nd, 2026

In California, the nation’s leading producer of fresh fruits and vegetables, the importance of water could hardly be overstated. And we certainly can’t ignore the obvious: California needs a water system growers can rely on.

This is where the California Farm Water Coalition (CFWC) comes in. Founded in 1989, in the midst of a six-year drought, the organization was formed to increase public awareness of agriculture’s efficient use of water and serve as a collective voice for California farmers and water users. At the helm of the coalition is Michelle Paul, CFWC Executive Director. While Paul considers herself an “inductee into the agriculture community,” she has spent years building a career at the intersection of communications, agriculture and water policy.

“I fell into the agriculture industry when I found myself working in support of state commodity group export programs,” said Paul. “It really was my first taste outside of my formal education at Fresno State.”

Graduating with a master’s degree in international affairs, Paul ultimately found a way to capitalize on her political acumen, spending a few years working in the Capitol. She later moved to AgWest Farm Credit (then known as Farm Credit West), where she supported member outreach programs and became increasingly engaged in the storytelling and advocacy work the organization used to support its members and the agriculture industry. She is also a graduate of the California Agricultural Leadership Program.

As she continued on her path of professional development, she had a yearning to get into the driver’s seat to have a greater impact on the industry at large. When longtime CFWC Executive Director Mike Wade announced his retirement, she saw an opportunity to step into that role and secured the position in November 2025.

According to Paul, “it’s been full speed ever since.”

That mix of communications experience and policy exposure now shapes how Paul approaches one of California agriculture’s most persistent challenges: making water issues understandable outside the industry. And in her view, water may be the most critical issue facing the state’s next administration.

Beyond “Not Enough Water”

The conversation around California water is often distilled into a simple question: Does the state have enough water?

According to Paul, the answer is considerably more complicated.

“We often think of water as simply a supply issue,” she said. “People say, ‘California doesn’t have enough water.’ But the conversation is much broader than that.”

Paul broke the state’s water situation into three interconnected components. The first is legal: who has the right to divert water and for what purpose. The second is operational: how that water is stored, moved and ultimately delivered. The third is physical supply: the water actually available in reservoirs, rivers and canals, snowpack and groundwater.

Paul said the current system inherently creates variability in the water allocations delivered to farmers, making it incredibly challenging, if not impossible, for growers to plan and continue operating a business under these conditions.

“We have increasing climate volatility, or weather whiplash, where the swings in precipitation and snowpack from year to year are increasing,” Paul said. “And that makes it very difficult to look at historical averages, which has typically been the way in which water operators, and the regulations, have allocated water.”

The result is a system in which multiple pressures can compound one another, and Paul emphasized the urgency in building a more reliable water system. The overlapping legal, operational and supply constraints are exactly what producers contend with when allocation decisions arrive after planting, budgeting and harvest operations are already underway.

Paul cited a recent example: In August, Central Valley Project south-of-delta contractors received a 3 percent increase in water allocation, bringing final delivery from 25 percent to 28 percent of their contract total. While additional water is valuable, the timing presented a challenge for growers who were already preparing for or actively harvesting their crops.

“It’s extremely difficult to account for and plan ways to maximize that water use when you don’t get that information until very, very late in the year,” said Paul.

Closing the Water Reliability Gap

The need for more reliable surface water is also closely tied to California’s efforts to manage groundwater, which Paul said has usually been utilized to fill in the gap as surface water deliveries have become more constrained.

But that safety net is tightening too, as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) limits pumping to protect aquifers and prevent subsidence. The result is a narrowing set of choices at the very moment growers need flexibility most.

The effects of SGMA implementation also extend beyond the farm itself. When less land can be farmed, workers can see reduced hours, and rural communities can lose economic activity, tax revenue and investment.

“Agriculture is a big engine that keeps them going,” Paul said of rural communities. “So if you remove that tax base and the amount of investment that comes into these rural, often socioeconomically challenged areas of the state, you have some real significant impacts on the economy that are very challenging to mitigate.”

Paul emphasized that growers are already taking significant steps to use water more efficiently. Between 1980 and 2015, farm production value increased approximately 38 percent while agricultural water use declined 14 percent, which she attributed to improvements in irrigation and farm management.

“Growers are more efficient with their water today than ever before,” she said. “On-farm growers are leaning hard into technology with soil moisture, using automated irrigation systems and looking to more efficient practices.”

But efficiency alone cannot close the gap.

“We can’t just conserve our way out of the water supply gap,” Paul said. “The gap is too big.”

The challenge now is implementing groundwater regulations that protect the resource while allowing growers and the communities that depend on agriculture to remain viable.

“SGMA needs to be implemented in a way that allows growers to survive and care for their community and their workers, in a really thoughtful and achievable way,” Paul said.

Infrastructure, Technology and the Path Forward

As groundwater pumping becomes increasingly constrained, Paul sees investing in increased storage capacity and surface water conveyance as two of the most important areas for policymakers to address.

Most of California’s major water storage infrastructure was built decades ago, when the state had half the population it does today, and Paul said, “We just haven’t kept up with it.”

While the solution sounds simple enough—modernize water infrastructure—she said the path forward is challenging from a regulatory and cost perspective. “And infrastructure projects that are most viable take a really long time before the shovel hits the ground,” she added.

When a project gets approved or begins to move forward, it is often met with legal pushback, which further delays any solution being implemented, including the long-discussed proposal to raise Shasta Dam.

Since contending with the politics surrounding water can take years, Paul thinks increased use of modern technology could be an answer for moving forward and in the right direction with how California manages and moves water. This includes greater investment in forecasting technology, reservoir operations, conveyance infrastructure and groundwater recharge.

“We’ve got to use updated technology, like using aerial devices for snow forecasts, to understand what the snowpack looks like in the high Sierras so that our water managers can better deliver water more efficiently, more effectively,” she said.

She also pointed to Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) as one example of how improved forecasting could help guide when and how water is released from reservoirs, adding that expediting environmental permitting would allow the state to take better care of its water resources in a more timely way.

Paul also sees opportunities beyond traditional surface storage. She explained how water districts are exploring groundwater recharge, recycled water projects and urban-ag partnerships, efforts she said are reflected in the state’s work toward SB 72 and its goal of identifying an additional 9 million acre-feet of new water supplies.

“I’m hopeful that focus on leveraging better data and technology to prioritize identifying new water supplies will survive the change in administration,” she said. “We need California’s top office to prioritize improving our water situation.”

Agriculture is Part of the Water Solution

For CFWC, policy debates are also communications challenges: how to help people see the connection between water decisions, food production and rural economies.

Much of CFWC’s work, Paul said, centers on helping policymakers and the public better understand what water means beyond the farm gate. The coalition uses media outreach, editorials, letters to the editor and interviews with non-industry publications to communicate the realities growers face, while also bringing media and influencers to farms to see issues firsthand.

“We’re really an educational organization,” Paul said. “The more aware people are of the significance of these issues, the better.”

That education is particularly important when it comes to public perceptions of agricultural water use.

“I think there’s a real disconnect with policymakers and voters, that water stays on the farm. Water doesn’t stay on the farm—it leaves the farm in the form of the product that goes to market,” Paul said. “All food takes water to grow. The question is where and how it’s grown.”

Looking ahead, Paul said California’s water policy needs to become faster, more transparent and more integrated. Decisions need to account for how policies affect agriculture, communities and the environment rather than addressing individual issues in isolation.

“There is a tendency to approach water supplies in a very siloed manner,” she said. “That’s not a long-term solution.”

Despite the challenges, Paul sees an opportunity to move toward more practical water solutions, particularly through new water supplies, improved technology and groundwater recharge. She noted that agricultural lands make up approximately 70 percent of groundwater recharge lands south of the Delta, another indication that agriculture can play an important role in addressing the state’s water challenges.

Ultimately, she said, communicating that role to the public will be critical.

“We’ve got to get out there and share success stories,” Paul said. “We need to share our story with the public because they are the ones who elect the policymakers. We need to help them understand that we’re part of the solution, not the problem.”

Predicting the Uncertain Future: 100 Years of Climate Change

October 22nd, 2026

Expect the unexpected.

This is the message that climatologists have been repeating over the past few years. Well, that, and the word of the season: anomalous (which essentially means, “whoa, didn’t see that coming”). Over the past few years, California has experienced several record-breaking events: “hottest night on record,” the “first-ever tropical storm” and most recently, a “Super El Niño.” Is all of this the new normal, or can modern tools allow us to predict the future?

What Even is a Super El Niño?

A normal El Niño is the warm phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), where a warm swell of water moves eastward, suppressing cool water upwelling along the coast, among other interruptions to typical ocean patterns. Usually, this injection of energy (warm water) increases the odds of above-normal winter precipitation across the southern U.S. Massive amounts of ocean heat releasing into the atmosphere increases air temperatures, resulting in the year following a Super El Niño peak being, historically, almost always the hottest year on record.

The catchy term “Super El Niño” essentially refers to a “very strong” El Niño event and is characterized by above-average ocean temperatures of an added 2 C (3.6 F) or more. When ocean temperatures spike this drastically, we can expect rising sea levels, and the increased frequency and intensity of storms. So far, climate scientists predict an overwhelming probability that 2027 will eclipse all prior records to become the warmest year ever observed.

Notably, warming from El Niño paired with warming from climate change is additive. This El Niño’s temporary atmospheric warming influence (+0.2 C to 0.4 C) will occur atop an existing (and essentially permanent) +1.4 to 1.5 C baseline global warming. California is expected to experience significantly wetter-than-normal conditions, which can lead to heavy rain, flooding, mudslides and coastal erosion fueled by high El Niño sea levels.

What Does This Mean for Agriculture?

The prediction for El Niño is not simply “more rain.” Rather, rainfall may become less evenly distributed, with more of it arriving in concentrated storms and longer dry intervals separating major precipitation events. Additionally, a Super El Niño is like a candle that burns hotter and faster, where we expect it to last a shorter amount of time, but the outcomes will be more extreme. While models and other tools are able to predict the probability of events, averages become less useful when anomalous extremes increasingly determine outcomes and agricultural impacts.

Projected climate risks for California farmers include increasing heat and precipitation volatility, drought-to-flood swings, wildfires and the difficulty of relying on historical averages. With a “thirstier atmosphere,” warmer air can increase evaporative demand and draw more moisture from soils, vegetation and water bodies. With warmer nighttime temperatures (such as the record-breaking nighttime temperatures in August 2026), plants may struggle to recover from daytime heat (nighttime warmth can affect respiration, flowering, pollination, fruit development, ripening and quality) or may not accumulate degree days necessary to trigger flowering.

However, despite all of these predictions, some of the more significant flooding events have occurred outside of El Niño years. Models are really only calculating the probability of possible events, not the certainty. Today, modern techniques can leverage machine learning and models, genetics and breeding, biostimulants and other tools to help growers make better decisions despite uncertainty.

Farmers have been trying to hedge uncertainty since the beginning of farming. While we can expect more extreme weather events as the new normal, modern tools help us to predict the probable future. Models can be valuable by presenting several plausible outcomes rather than attempting to identify one certain future. The future of agricultural prediction is less about identifying exactly what anomalous event will occur and more about preparing with resilience against a wide range of more extreme possibilities.

Once-in-a-Lifetime Trip 1km Below the Surface

October 22nd, 2026

By Cierra Allen, Program Manager, and Bryan Nickerson, Membership Director

In mid-August, the Western Growers Leadership Program (WGLP) and several WGLP alumni had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to visit a Nutrien potash mine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

To start our trip, the WGLP group, along with a few Nutrien employees, arrived early Monday morning to the Nutrien Cory Potash Mine, located about 20 minutes outside of Saskatoon.

Before heading underground, we first went through several safety training courses and reviewed the necessary precautions for our visit. We then suited up in hard hats equipped with lamps, protective jumpsuits, goggles and oxygen self-rescuers. Once we were fully prepped, we climbed into a large elevator for the four-minute descent to 1 kilometer (over 3,000 feet) into the mine.

Once we made it down, we were greeted by surprisingly warm 81 degree temperatures. Our tour guides liked to mention that while 81 degrees may seem a bit warm, the temperature stays consistent year-round, regardless of the weather on the surface. That means that when the temperatures plunge during the winter, the mine isn’t that bad of a place to work.

Once underground, we loaded into electric ATVs and off we went to the “face,” or area where the potash was actively being mined that day. The mining face was about 15 kilometers, or about a 45-minute drive, from the elevator.

Yes, you read that correctly. We traveled 45 minutes through the underground tunnels, getting farther and farther away from the elevator—the same elevator that served as our only way in or out. Needless to say, it was a little nerve-racking.

The group consensus was that the best way to describe that trek through the mine was the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland. You know the one: you are in a jeep, traveling fast through dark tunnels, with ropes hanging from the ceiling and gates that suddenly stop your vehicle? It was remarkably similar to our trip as we drove through dark tunnels only illuminated by the ATVs’ headlights, passing through large underground “garages” operated by ropes hanging from the ceiling, zooming along in twisting tunnels.

Eventually, we arrived at the mining face, where we got to see a massive machine called a continuous miner actively cutting into the potash. The continuous miner uses a large rotating cutting drum to break apart the potash from the rock. The mined material is then collected and transported by several miles of conveyor belts toward the surface.

After exploring more of the mine, we made our way back to the elevator and returned to the surface.

Once our mine tour was over, it was time to head to the mill portion of the facility to see what happens after the potash is brought out of the ground. This is where the raw ore is processed and transformed into a finished product ready for transport.

We were able to see the process from start to finish: from the arrival of the raw ore, to crushing and sizing, separating the potassium chloride from the salt, cleaning and concentrating the product, drying it and finally seeing the different types of finished potash.

After seeing the finished product, we then got to see how it makes its way to customers. We watched the process of loading the potash into railcars, where they average about 77 rail cars per day and ship about 2.4 million tons of potash a year.

While the potash produced at this mine is primarily used for fertilizer that gets shipped around the world, potash also has a variety of industrial and medical uses.

It was a very eventful and informative day, and we feel extremely fortunate and grateful to have had the opportunity to experience something that so few people ever get to see firsthand.

You may have noticed that this article has two authors. There is a reason for that: one of us came down with a terrible bout of the flu and was unfortunately unable to make it to the activities of day two. So, while we may have started this adventure together, only one of us made it through the entire experience.

…

Following a full day observing Nutrien’s Cory Potash Mining operations, the group had the opportunity to visit the breeding facility located on the University of Saskatchewan campus. The University of Saskatchewan and Nutrien share a long-standing partnership focused on advanced agricultural research, including crop breeding and development.

Led by Senior Director Bruce Harrison, the tour provided an inside look at the facility’s on-site laboratories, where subject matter experts shared insights into molecular science, chemistry and plant pathology. The group also received a hands-on tour of the greenhouse facilities, highlighting the research and breeding efforts focused on developing climate-resilient crops and advancing agricultural innovation.

In the afternoon, the group traveled to the Nutrien Tower in downtown Saskatoon for a series of presentations from Nutrien leadership. The presentations provided valuable insight into the company’s approach to quality management, economic and market research, distribution and logistics and proprietary innovation. Collectively, the sessions offered a broader perspective on the complex business operations and strategic considerations that support the global agricultural supply chain.

The day concluded with a private tour of Black Fox Distillery, operated by fifth-generation farmers John Cote and Barb Stefanyshyn-Cote. The farm and distillery provide a unique example of agricultural entrepreneurship and value-added production, with nearly 95 percent of the ingredients used in their products—including triticale, grains, fruits and flowers—grown on their own farm.

More than simply a distillery, Black Fox represents a living farm, a cultural symbol, and a compelling testament to the connection between agriculture, craftsmanship and entrepreneurship. The operation has earned significant recognition, including Saskatchewan and Canada’s Outstanding Young Farmers awards, as well as Saskatoon’s Entrepreneur of the Year award in 2018.

Altogether, the trip was one for the books. The WGLP Class VIII and alumni were able to bond and share experiences like no other. From traveling more than 3,000 feet underground to watching potash go from raw ore to a finished product ready to be shipped around the world, to learning all about Nutrien and its part in the agriculture industry, the experience gave us all a whole new appreciation for the scale and complexity of the potash industry. We are incredibly thankful to Nutrien and their amazing team for their generosity.