DIR Alerts Agricultural Employers to Expanded Foreign Labor Contractor Registration Requirements

November 6th, 2026

The California Department of Industrial Relations has issued an October 29 notice reminding agricultural employers and labor contractors that AB 1362 expands California’s Foreign Labor Contractor (FnLC) registration program to H-2A recruitment beginning July 1, 2027. The program currently covers recruitment under the H-2B visa program. Under the expansion, farm labor contractors that perform covered foreign recruitment activities must obtain separate FnLC registration, even if they already hold a California farm labor contractor license.

The law covers people and businesses that recruit or solicit, for compensation, workers residing outside the United States for employment in California. It applies even when the recruitment takes place entirely abroad. DIR’s notice describes covered activities broadly, including screening applicants, arranging consular appointments, referring workers to employers, and coordinating transportation to obtain or accept employment.

An employer or its employee recruiting directly and solely for the employer’s own workforce remains excluded from the definition of foreign labor contracting activity. But an employer that uses an outside recruiter has obligations under the law, even if the employer does not need to register as a foreign labor contractor itself.

What employers need to know

The principal requirements include the following: 

  • Registration and bonding. Covered contractors must submit an application, pay applicable fees, and satisfy registration requirements, including a surety bond ranging from $50,000 to $150,000 based on annual gross receipts from foreign labor contracting operations. A farm labor contractor license alone will not satisfy the separate registration requirement. 
  • Worker disclosures. At recruitment, contractors must provide written disclosures in English and the worker’s primary language using DLSE Form 703. These include the identities of the employer and recruiter, any recruiting agents or subcontractors, a signed work contract, visa information, and an itemized statement of costs or expenses. Recruitment fees cannot be charged to workers. 
  • Employer disclosures and verification. Employers using covered recruiters must disclose that relationship to the Labor Commissioner using DLSE Form 704. The law prohibits knowingly entering into an agreement with an unregistered foreign labor contractor. DIR maintains an online registration database employers can use to verify registration. 

Violations can result in civil penalties of $1,000 to $25,000 per violation, damages, attorney’s fees, and potential misdemeanor liability. 

Agricultural employers should review their H-2A recruiting arrangements now, identify who performs recruitment abroad, and confirm that covered providers will have valid FnLC registration when the expansion takes effect. DIR’s notice directs applicants to complete registration before July 1, 2027, and states that an online application will be available before that date.  

 

Employers should also prepare to submit their own required disclosures and retain documentation verifying their recruiters’ registration. Application materials and updates are available on DIR’s Foreign Labor Contractors webpage. 

Tags: ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Fair Chance Act Responses Can Put Privileged Documents at Risk

November 6th, 2026

California employers responding to a Civil Rights Department (CRD) investigation should take care when explaining how they complied with the state’s Fair Chance Act. A newly published California Court of Appeal decision emphasizes that an employer’s response to CRD can potentially put otherwise privileged materials at issue. 

In Civil Rights Department v. City of Torrance, the City provided CRD with a written narrative explaining how it had complied with its Fair Chance Act obligations in evaluating applicants’ criminal histories. When CRD later sought the underlying individualized assessments and related forms, the City withheld the documents based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product protections. 

The Court of Appeal later affirmed an order requiring the City to produce the documents. The court concluded that by relying on its compliance with the Fair Chance Act as a defense, the City had put the adequacy of its individualized assessments at issue and waived its privilege claims as to those materials. 

What Does it Mean? 

The decision is an important reminder that involving legal counsel in a hiring or compliance process does not necessarily mean the underlying work will remain protected if the employer later relies on that work to defend its actions. 

The Fair Chance Act generally prohibits covered employers from considering an applicant’s conviction history until after making a conditional offer of employment. Before withdrawing an offer based on conviction history, an employer must conduct an individualized assessment of whether the conviction has a direct and adverse relationship to the specific duties of the position.  

As discussed here, employers should regularly audit their hiring practices, conduct required individualized assessments, provide compliant notices, and use checklists to help ensure Fair Chance Act requirements are consistently followed. The Civil Rights Department v. City of Torrance decision underscores an additional risk employers must keep in mind, which is that demonstrating compliance with Fair Chance Act obligations can come at the cost of privilege. 

Consider the following when responding to a CRD inquiry: 

  • Separate ordinary hiring records from those seeking legal advice. Clearly distinguish documents used to conduct the hiring and individualized-assessment process from confidential communications seeking or providing legal advice. 
  • Preserve assessment records. Maintain individualized assessments, notices and related documentation consistent with your organization’s Fair Chance Act process. 
  • Keep agency responses factual and measured. Avoid unnecessary descriptions of legal counsel’s involvement, legal analysis or privileged compliance work when explaining the company’s actions. 
  • Conduct a privilege review before responding. Have legal counsel review the proposed response and supporting materials together to identify whether the employer is relying on privileged work to establish compliance and whether the response could put that work at issue. 

Employers should carefully consider how they demonstrate Fair Chance Act compliance to the CRD. A factual, counsel-reviewed response can assist in lowering risk and establish compliance without inadvertently waiving attorney-client privilege. 

Tags: ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

OSHA’s November 20 Hazard Communication Deadline: What Employers Need to Know

November 6th, 2026

Employers covered by federal OSHA face a November 20, 2026, deadline to make certain updates under the agency’s revised Hazard Communication Standard. For hazardous chemical substances, employers must update workplace labeling and their hazard communication programs as necessary, and provide additional employee training on newly identified hazards. The revised standard took effect in July 2024, with phased compliance deadlines. November 20 is the upcoming employer compliance date for substances. 

The revisions primarily align OSHA’s standard with the seventh revision of the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. Changes include revised hazard classifications, updated label and safety data sheet requirements, special labeling provisions for small containers, and new rules governing chemical concentration information claimed as a trade secret. Employers may receive updated labels and safety data sheets from suppliers even when the products themselves have not changed. 

For employers that use hazardous chemicals, the immediate task is to review updated supplier information and determine whether workplace practices need to change. By November 20, federally covered employers must, where necessary: 

  • Update alternative workplace labels, including labels used on secondary containers. 
  • Revise their written hazard communication programs to reflect updated hazard information. 
  • Train affected employees on newly identified physical, health, or other covered hazards and the measures needed to protect themselves. 

Simply handing employees a safety data sheet does not satisfy the training requirement. Employees need an explanation of the hazards and how to use the information to work safely. The separate employer deadline for corresponding updates involving chemical mixtures is May 19, 2028. Existing hazard communication duties continue during the transition. 

How does this affect California and other State Plan states? 

The federal deadline applies directly to workplaces under federal OSHA jurisdiction. States operating OSHA-approved State Plans must maintain standards at least as effective as the federal requirements, but employers must check their state’s adopted rules and compliance schedule. A federal revision does not automatically establish the same deadline under every state program. 

California employers generally follow Cal/OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard in Title 8, section 5194. DIR’s currently published regulation does not incorporate the federal November 20, 2026, deadline. California employers should continue complying with section 5194 and monitor state adoption of the federal revisions. They also have an existing duty to provide employees with new safety data sheet information within 30 days of receipt when it indicates significantly increased health risks or additional protective measures. 

What employers should do now 

Agricultural employers should use the approaching deadline to review chemical inventories, request current safety data sheets, check workplace labels, and determine whether employees need additional instruction. Businesses operating in multiple states should confirm the requirements for each location rather than assume one compliance schedule applies throughout their operations.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Sustainable Food Safety: Feeding Today without Mortgaging Tomorrow 

November 6th, 2026

A sustainable food system must deliver safe, nutritious food today while preserving the capacity to produce it tomorrow. That requires considering food safety, environmental stewardship and agricultural productivity together. One of the most interesting college courses I ever took was Crops, Soils, and Civilizations – in short, how our agricultural systems helped shape the rise and fall of the civilizations that our ancestors had constructed (i.e., think the rise and fall of Rome, Mesopotamia, the Aztecs, etc.).  

We probably don’t think of it often, but civilizations grow from the ground up. Their food supplies depend on crops, water and soils—and, more importantly, on our decisions about how to manage them across generations. 

Ancient Mesopotamia offers a cautionary example. Irrigation supported agriculture in an arid landscape, but salt accumulation also made some land unsuitable for cultivation. Ancient records document saline fields, illustrating a challenge that remains familiar today—sustaining production requires managing the consequences of how we produce. Civilizations have complex histories, and soil degradation alone does not explain their rise or decline. But their agricultural foundations deserve our attention. 

Today, our tools for farming are more sophisticated, but the underlying responsibility remains to produce enough safe, nutritious food now while protecting the capacity to keep producing it.  

That means we must consider food safety, sustainability, and agricultural productivity together. 

We frequently evaluate sustainability and food safety goals separately and sometimes separate from agricultural productivity altogether. That approach can complicate evaluating the complete outcome of our efforts. A practice may earn recognition for reducing water use, improving soil health or increasing yield without providing enough attention to its effects (short-and long-term) elsewhere in the system.  

Food safety decisions can be similarly narrow when we focus on controlling one hazard without considering broader consequences. 

The better question we need to be asking is “What does this decision mean for the whole system, across both short- and long-time horizons?” 

Agricultural productivity belongs in that conversation. Maintaining reliable production today supports food availability and farm viability. Protecting soil, water and ecological function supports the ability to keep producing. A system that delivers strong yields while degrading its productive capacity is borrowing against the future. That future is not just of the farm or the grower. That future is the one lost for the consumer population that depends on it for nutrition and health.  

It is often too easy to take for granted abundant grocery store shelves—those are a visible reward from systems and producers who have been able to invest in their fields to put food on the table. But an agricultural strategy that overlooks long-term production and economic realities may struggle to endure long enough to deliver its promised benefits. 

Food safety must be part of this assessment from the beginning. Changes in water sources, soil amendments, wildlife management, and production practices deserve evaluation for both their environmental benefits and their potential to introduce or control hazards.  

Data can help us move beyond assumptions. We need to measure outcomes across multiple dimensions: pathogen risk, resource use, yield, food loss, soil condition and economic viability.  

We also need to ask what we are measuring against.  

Whole-system thinking does not mean every decision delivers a win on every measure. It means making tradeoffs visible, testing assumptions and adapting as evidence improves. 

The goal is a food system that is both safe and sustainable and that protects people, sustains agricultural livelihoods and maintains the resources and productive capacity future generations will need.   

The lesson from ancient fields is still relevant today—perhaps more so in our rapidly changing climates and environments. Agricultural productivity depends on maintaining its foundations. Our responsibility is to protect and steward those foundations while ensuring that the food they produce is safe—feeding today safely without mortgaging tomorrow. 

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

The Measure of a Food Safety Program Is How Much Risk It Removes

November 4th, 2026

In food safety, we often spend a lot of time talking about food testing. These conversations often revolve around sample mass, number of grabs, lot size, timing, etc. But, instead of getting lost in the specifics of sample mass, grabs, etc., we should start with the meaningful question is: What contamination is this program designed to detect, with what probability, and what happens when it finds it? 

The mechanics of testing matter—the sample mass, the number and distribution of grabs, the lot they represent, and the limitations of the test. But their value depends on the design and execution of the whole sampling and testing program: how intensively we sample, where and when samples are collected, how well they represent the product being evaluated, how confident we are that collection followed the sampling plan, and how reliably the analytical method detects the target pathogen. 

A simple number in grams cannot describe that system. Yet too often, that is where we end up discussing and evaluating the “value” of a sample.  

What Are We Actually Measuring? 

Grabs 

Pathogens are not necessarily distributed evenly across a field, irrigation water source, a production run, or a finished product lot. Contamination can be, and usually is, sporadic, clustered, and difficult to capture. Increasing the mass collected from one location does not necessarily provide the same information as collecting increments across locations and times. We usually call these increments grabs or ‘n’.  

Think of searching a beach for lost keys. One large, deep scoop (a large grab) in one part of the beach examines a lot of sand in one specific area but covers little of the entire beach. Many small scoops that are spread across the beach cover far more ground, giving us higher odds of finding the keys. The figure below puts this into perspective. In our simulated lot, a single large scoop finds a hot spot covering 1% of the lot 3.5% of the time, while 60 small grabs of the same total size find it 53.0% of the time (assuming every grab that touches the hot spot detects it). 

Mass 

Mass is the amount of material each grab, and the whole sample, actually examines. A bigger grab is more likely to contain the organism if it lands in contamination, and it touches a slightly larger patch. But mass collected in one place is still one chance. For a fixed total sample, the design question becomes how to split it: fewer, larger grabs, or more, smaller ones. 

There is a limit. Splitting a sample into more pieces covers more of the lot, but each piece holds less material, so it is less likely to contain any organism at all.  

Intensity 

Intensity is how much sample we collect for the ground it represents: total mass per total unit we are trying to represent. Grabs and grab mass describe the design of a sample, but intensity describes how thinly that sample is stretched over the lot.   

To see the effect, hold a small hot spot fixed at 1% of a one-acre lot (0.01 acre) and change only the intensity, as in the figure below. Detection rises with intensity at every contamination level, but the contamination level sets how much intensity is needed. At 100 CFU/lb (a very high level of contamination) the plan on one acre finds the hot spot 56% of the time; stretched over  a theoretical 10 acres it falls to 8% of the time. At 10 CFU/lb  (10x lower contamination level) the same two cases are 23% and 2.5%, and at 1 CFU/lb (level calculated to have been representative of an outbreak) they are 3% and 0.3%.  

Sampling is a probability exercise; the figure below and explanation above shows that clustered contamination is hard to find. This doesn’t mean a plan is flawed. It shows that mass, grabs, and the area they represent work together, and that no single number describes how well a plan performs. Intensity matters, so mass and grabs cannot be spoken as independent numbers. 

Putting it all together 

The reality is, to evaluate the value of a sample, we need to understand the grabs, the amount of material examined (mass), the area/pounds/size of the lot it represents (intensity), and the opportunities the sampling design creates to encounter contamination if it is present. Just as importantly, and perhaps more so, is that we also need to understand the uncertainty in using those results to draw conclusions about the larger population (i.e., lot, field, water source, input). Codex recognizes this limitation: a sampling plan can describe the probability of detecting contamination, but no sampling plan can establish that a particular organism is absent from an entire lot. 

A negative result means the target was not detected in the material examined, under the conditions of that test. The confidence we place in that result must come from the design and performance of the whole program. That makes “which sample tests more?” an inadequate and incomplete measure of food safety performance. 

We should be asking what each testing and sampling program can detect, what it is likely to miss, how confident are we in the performance of the sampling and testing, and whether that performance is appropriate for the hazard and the exposure involved. 

Testing and prevention serve different purposes. 

Testing provides information. It can identify contaminated product, reveal emerging problems, verify controls, and support decisions that prevent exposure. Those are important functions, but the test itself does not remove a pathogen or correct the conditions that allowed contamination to occur. It tells us something (mostly when it finds something), but it doesn’t tell us anything more than what the program was designed to tell us.  

Let’s explore what a positive test result can do. When a positive is found, the product is held and diverted so that the pathogen doesn’t go into the supply chain, and ultimately to a consumer. The protective action is the containment and disposition of that product. Its effectiveness as a mitigation still depends entirely on whether the sampling program finds the contamination in the first place. 

This is why testing alone should rarely carry the primary burden of risk mitigation. Trying to intercept contamination after it has occurred can require substantial sampling, time, and expense while still leaving opportunities for contaminated product to pass undetected. Codex places the foundation of food safety in source control, hygienic practices, and process controls, recognizing that preventive approaches provide greater control than microbiological testing alone. The ultimate value of a food safety program is the system, and the power (or intensity) of that program to address specific thresholds of risk. 

The question for investment by the food industry should therefore be: Where will the next dollar produce the greatest reduction in consumer risk? 

Sometimes better sampling is necessary. Sometimes there would be better impact if we improved the underlying infrastructure more – addressing the uncertainty around the sampling, the testing, the variables that we are measuring with the testing (inputs, practices, etc.) that may interact with the test outcomes. Generally, the greater benefit comes from improving the entire program to understand and manage more effectively agricultural water use, sanitation practices, equipment design, or other controls that addresses minimizing contamination (or allowing it to reduce – die off, etc.) at its source. We should be designing the testing programs to help us better characterize our systems – highlighting what we know, what remains to be known, and ultimately to identify and evaluate the effect of improvements once made. 

Zero tolerance does not mean zero uncertainty. 

Our goal should be to prevent consumers from being exposed to foodborne pathogens. 

But a zero-tolerance criterion for a target pathogen is not a demonstration that a testing program can detect every instance of its presence. Requiring action whenever a pathogen is detected and being capable of detecting all contamination are different things. Every practical sampling program has both theoretical and real limits. It most definitely has some probability of detecting a specified contamination scenario, but it also has some probability of missing it. We should make those limits explicit and intentional. 

We should aim to be able to explain the prevalence, concentration, and distribution of contamination it is designed to detect, with a stated probability and under stated assumptions. In short, what type of scenario are we aiming to find (1 CFU/lb, gross contamination in x% of lot/servings/pounds, etc.), and how well do we actually know our program executed to find it. 

Those characteristics describe detection performance and the overall efficacy of the testing and sampling program. Without those connections, we risk treating testing activity as evidence of protection, and that is rarely, if ever, the best way to address the challenge. 

Outcomes must challenge our assumptions. 

A food safety program cannot be evaluated solely by whether its procedures were followed. It must also be evaluated against what happens to the people it is intended to protect. Illnesses and outbreaks are evidence that unacceptable levels of exposure have occurred. Positive findings and recalls provide additional information, although their meaning depends on context: a product test result or recall initiated through effective detection before consumption tells a different story from one prompted by an outbreak. 

These signals deserve investigation individually and collectively. Their significance is not captured by a count alone, and we should not wait for a succession of outbreaks before improving a program. When the evidence shows that consumer harm occurred, this remains unacceptable (too many outbreaks/illnesses)and we need to reconsider both our controls and the residual risk our system permits. That may mean redesigning surveillance to detect more contamination than was previously designed for (same sample in smaller lots, less contamination per pound like 1 CFU/0.5lb, 1 CFU/lb in a smaller lot, etc.), responding earlier to warning signs by designing a program that teaches more earlier so that we can intervene (index genes, etc.), strengthening preventive controls, or some combination of these actions. Increasing testing alone cannot substitute for identifying why contamination exists, continues, and/or how to reduce it in the first place. 

A program can meet its existing specifications and still need to improve. The specifications themselves may no longer provide sufficient protection. 

Continuous improvement needs direction and pace. 

Continuous improvement requires more than a commitment to do better. It requires decisions about how much risk to remove, which actions are most likely to remove it, and how quickly those actions must occur. 

Testing helps inform those decisions. Its value grows when results lead to investigation, corrective action, and measurable improvements in control. That is the conversation we should be having. 

What level of contamination can our program reliably detect? How much uncertainty remains? What exposure can occur before we recognize a problem? And when the evidence shows that the remaining risk is unacceptable, how quickly will we change to address that? 

Let’s start evaluating the risk our programs are designed to detect, the exposure we are willing to tolerate, and the actions we will take to reduce both. 

Have questions? The WG Science team is here to help on how to do this evaluation. 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

The Future of Fresh Produce Safety Must Begin with Consumer Confidence

November 4th, 2026

Fresh fruits and vegetables are essential to a healthy diet. Protecting their safety also protects consumers’ willingness to eat them.  

Confidence in fresh produce is earned through effective prevention, consistent oversight by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), accountability throughout the supply chain, and clear, consistent communication during a crisis. Each reinforces the others.  

Consumers need a system that reduces the likelihood of illness, responds promptly when problems occur, and demonstrates that those problems are being corrected. When an outbreak occurs, a shopper’s questions are immediate and practical: Is the lettuce in my refrigerator affected? Can I buy another kind? Does this warning apply to the fruits and vegetables I serve my children? When answers are incomplete or difficult to find, uncertainty can extend beyond the implicated product. Preserving confidence means helping consumers understand actual risks and take appropriate action. A warning that temporarily reduces confidence may be exactly what public health requires. The obligation is to make that warning useful, explain its limits, and show what happens next. 

That obligation begins with prevention. Most consumers will never review an agricultural water assessment or a sanitation record, but they depend on the quality of those decisions. A well-managed food safety system connects risk assessment with effective preventive measures, employee training, and monitoring that detects changing conditions. Because fresh produce is grown in open environments where hazards cannot always be eliminated, growers must continually use evidence to adapt to those measures and reduce the likelihood of contamination and illness. Operational data should help anticipate risks and improve decisions throughout growing, harvesting, packing, and distribution. 

Consumers should be able to expect effective prevention wherever their produce is grown. Consistent FDA oversight is essential to that expectation. The agency should apply clear, science-based expectations to domestic and imported produce, direct resources toward the greatest risks, and follow through when deficiencies are identified. Consistency means comparable expectations for protection, with oversight tailored to the hazards and performance of particular operations. Inspections and compliance actions and reviews should evaluate and verify whether preventive measures are working, supported by evidence that corrective actions address the underlying problems. Public reporting should help consumers understand what FDA oversight is accomplishing and where further improvement is needed.  Strong foreign supplier verification is part of this approach. Importers should connect knowledge of hazards and supplier performance to appropriate verification and documented correction of problems. They should be able to demonstrate why those activities provide confidence in their suppliers. Product origin can inform a risk assessment, but it should never substitute evidence about a particular hazard, growing environment, or operation. Neither domestic nor imported origin guarantees safety. 

Accountability must also extend to every participant whose decisions affect safety. Beyond the grower, harvester and shipper, all fresh produce supply chain participants should understand their responsibilities, verify that relevant controls are effective, and act on evidence of failure. Retailers and food service establishments have a particularly important role because their purchasing decisions shape supplier expectations and are a direct point of contact with consumers. Supplier requirements and purchasing practices should support effective food safety system development, not hinder it through prescriptive non-science-based requirements.  An audit certificate should inform supplier evaluation without replacing the retailer’s accountability for understanding its supply chain’s ongoing performance. 

When prevention fails, every stakeholder’s response should serve a common purpose: protecting families while helping them make informed choices about fresh produce.  

Supply-chain participants must quickly identify affected products, share accurate records, and carry out recalls. Retailers should remove affected products promptly and help customers determine whether their purchases are implicated, using purchase records and notification channels where feasible. Restaurants should connect official advice to what customers were served. These actions should help families understand what to avoid, what to do with food already purchased, and which choices remain available under current guidance. Clear, consistent crisis communication is essential to that consumer benefit. Families should be able to find understandable answers wherever they seek advice, across public and private channels. FDA, CDC, state and local agencies, and private partners should communicate from a shared factual foundation while being transparent about uncertainty. Every update should distinguish confirmed findings from suspected links, explain what consumers should do, and identify what has changed and when more information is expected. Agencies should explain changes in advice, and all communication partners should promptly relay updates and corrections. Consistency helps people act confidently as evidence develops. 

Preserving confidence also requires helping consumers understand the boundaries of a warning. An advisory about a particular product should not leave families uncertain about an entire produce category. Agencies should explain the advisory’s scope and narrow it when evidence supports doing so. Retailers, foodservice businesses, and other partners should make that guidance easy to apply to everyday purchases and meals. The goal is to help consumers avoid implicated products and understand how they can continue including fresh fruits and vegetables in their families’ diets, with assurances grounded in the available evidence. That responsibility continues after the immediate threat has passed. Declaring an outbreak over should help families understand why the immediate risk has ended and what that means for their purchases. Businesses should show how they addressed identified failures, while regulators should report on follow-through. Consumers should see who is responsible for prevention changes and how effectiveness will be assessed. Visible improvement gives families a credible basis for renewed confidence. 

A standing public-private communication partnership could make this shared responsibility routine.  

Public agencies, supply-chain participants, researchers, health professionals and consumer representatives should prepare and test materials before a crisis. Consumer participation should shape the questions addressed, language used, and channels chosen, including translations and accessible formats. Public agencies must retain authority over official health advice, and urgent warnings must proceed without delay.  Success should be measured by whether people can identify affected products, take protective action, understand their options, and feel equipped to choose fresh produce for their families. 

Every stakeholder has a role in earning and preserving consumer confidence. Growers and suppliers must demonstrate effective prevention; FDA must provide consistent oversight and follow-through; and supply-chain participants, including retailers, must be accountable for their decisions and their response when problems arise. Together, they must make reliable information understandable and useful.  

Even during a crisis, families deserve a clear basis for knowing which products to avoid and feeling confident about the fresh produce they can continue to consume. That consumer benefit must guide every stakeholder’s actions. 

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

The Social Wrap: Oct. 29 – Nov. 4

November 4th, 2026

From wrapping up Pumpkin Palooza to taking consumers into the field for a look at holiday crops, see how we put our members and the industry in the spotlight on social media this week.

For the final stop of our Pumpkin Palooza campaign, we visited Van Groningen & Sons for a behind-the-scenes tour of their pumpkin packing facility, showing consumers how pumpkins are sorted, stickered and packed before heading to stores and pumpkin patches.

Western Growers Postdoctoral Research Associate for Biologicals Amanda Rodriguez also broke down the differences between organic and regenerative agriculture, helping our audience better understand two terms they may often hear when it comes to how their food is grown.

At Ratto Bros. Inc. in Modesto, Calif., Geoff Ratto took us into the field for a look at collard greens and baby bok choy growing just in time for the holiday season.

We also shared that the Q4 2026 digital issue of Western Grower & Shipper magazine is now available online, giving our audience another way to connect with the stories, people and issues shaping Western agriculture.

By taking followers from the packing line to the field and tackling questions about farming practices along the way, we’re helping consumers better understand the work, expertise and innovation behind what our members grow.

Watch and share today on all platforms:

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

California SB 54 Program Plan: Public Comments Due November 13, 2026

November 4th, 2026

Public comments will close Nov 13th for the revised Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) Program Plan submitted by Circular Action Alliance (CAA) to CalRecycle under California’s implementation of the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54).

How to Submit Comments:

  • November 13, 2026 deadline to submit comments to CalRecycle on the CAA California Program Plan.
  • Comments may be submitted via email to [email protected] with the subject line “PRO Plan Comments.”

Resources

  • Review the revised Program Plan submitted by CAA here.
  • Comments can include suggestions as it pertains to your operation, for example:
    • The draft requires payment of a separate administrative fee that may cover estimated operating costs, legal costs, or other costs CAA considers appropriate and expressly distinguishes this fee from Plan implementation revenues and CalRecycle’s administrative fee. A defined list of allowable expenses, a published budget and allocation methodology, advance notice, annual reconciliation, and credits for excess collections must be provided. Duplicate recovery and disclosure of national/shared-service allocations must be prohibited.
    • Section 11.5 requires implementation of ISR Plan actions as required by law or the Plan, and section 11.11 requires revisions when reasonably requested by CAA to enable the program to meet legal requirements. For fresh produce, a planned packaging change may later fail testing or prove unavailable commercially. The Plan must expressly state that Collective targets do not automatically become identical percentage obligations for every producer and that:
      • Forecasts and proposed trials are distinguished from binding implementation commitments.
      • Producers may revise plans when testing demonstrates food-safety, shelf-life, structural, sanitation, or commercial-feasibility problems.
      • CAA must consider documented packaging constraints before requiring additional actions.
      • A producer does not contractually guarantee CAA’s collective performance.
    • The current Plan as written appears to allow for enforcement of proposed requirements throughout the review process by CalRecycle. The updated Plan must require notice and reasonable implementation time for subsequent changes.
    • In the opening definition of Company, page 1; recital, page 2; sections 1.3 and 2.1, pages 2–4, the recital says the company has determined it is obligated as a California Producer. The opening also includes its subsidiaries within “Company.” Signing must not concede that every subsidiary, field-packing activity, packaging application, or component is covered.
    • In Sections 2.5, 3.6, and 5.7, pages 4–8, the draft allows retroactive fees following an unsuccessful exemption claim, with potential additional charges. Correcting a report does not suspend payment of an existing invoice until CAA accepts the correction. Section 5.7.2 also authorizes inaccurate-reporting liquidated damages using a formula involving $5,000 or the associated fees, whichever is greater. It does provide protection for self-identified inaccuracies corrected within 60 days. A notice, substantiation, and an opportunity to contest additional charges must be provided. CAA must also have a deadline to accept or reject corrections and issue resulting refunds or credits.
    • In Sections 3.6, 5.2.1, 5.6–5.7, and 7.2, pages 5–9, the distinction outlined in Section 5.2.1 already refers to undisputed overdue payments when describing bonus eligibility. That distinction should carry through the agreement. Producers should be allowed to pay undisputed amounts while a timely, documented dispute is reviewed. During that review, suspend contractual late charges, collection action, and termination based solely on the disputed amount. Specify decision deadlines and preserve earned bonuses.
    • In Section 8, page 10, The arbitration clause extends to disputes over the extent of the parties’ obligations under California EPR law. Provide an affordable process for smaller billing disputes and reconsider mandatory equal sharing of arbitration costs.

Next Steps

The updated plan includes revisions related to environmental justice, reimbursement mechanisms, responsible end markets, materials management strategies, budget development, and fee-setting methodologies. The proposed plan outlines how producers will meet SB 54 requirements through investments in recycling and reuse infrastructure, support for local jurisdictions, increased transparency for recycled materials, and strategies to advance source reduction and recycled content goals across California.

CalRecycle is currently reviewing the submission and has up to 75 days to determine whether to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the plan. Public comments submitted during this review period may help inform that decision.

For further questions on SB54, please contact Melissa Koshlaychuk, Gail Delihant or Jeana Cadby.

 

Posted in News | No Comments »

FDA Releases New Chemical Hazards Guidance and Will Host a Webinar on November 16th

November 4th, 2026

On October 22nd FDA released a new draft guidance on how food companies should find and control chemical hazards, plus draft limits for cadmium in foods for babies and young children. FDA will walk through both in a webinar on Monday, Nov. 16, from 10 am to 11 am CA Time, 11 am to 12 pm Arizona Time 

Register: FDA webinar registration 

What Is This, In Simple Terms? 

Food facilities must write a food safety plan that starts with a hazard analysis: what could happen with each food they make, pack, or hold. Chapter 12, is FDA’s new how-to for the chemical hazards, covering which chemicals are a concern and what to do about them. 

Separately, FDA proposed cadmium action levels, which are benchmarks for how much cadmium in processed baby and toddler foods is a concern. FDA considers them achievable with control measures. Both are part of Closer to Zero, FDA’s effort to reduce children’s exposure to heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury). 

Where It Stands and How to Comment 

Both documents are drafts. Neither is final or carries out the force of a requirement, and FDA says its inspectors are not yet using Chapter 12 for enforcement. Comments go to regulations.gov: 

Western Growers will be preparing comments for both documents. If you have any inquiries, please reach out to the science team [email protected]  

What Does This Mean For Growers? 

These draft documents do not directly affect farms. The food safety plan requirement applies to registered food facilities, not farms, and the cadmium levels are for manufacturers of processed baby foods. But the buyers of your crops must evaluate chemical hazards in raw ingredients, and FDA notes that crops can absorb trace heavy metals from where they are grown. Growers may see: 

  • Buyer questions about the soil, water, and inputs behind a crop, especially for infant and toddler products (carrots, spinach) 
  • Supplier specifications or testing requests tied to contaminant levels 
  • Uncertainty about what level to meet when FDA has not set one 

More Detail on the Drafts 

Chemical hazards guidance (Chapter 12) 

Chapter 12 explains how food facilities should find and control chemical hazards under the preventive controls rule, with practical examples across many hazards. 

  • Which chemicals: environmental contaminants (arsenic, cadmium, lead, dioxins, PFAS), natural toxins such as mycotoxins, pesticide and animal drug residues, unapproved additives, and economically motivated adulteration. The FDA says contamination can happen at any stage. 
  • Deciding if a control is needed: facilities look to FDA contaminant and action levels, then weigh what is known about the hazard, the food and its ingredient sources, and how likely and serious the harm would be. When FDA has no level, the international Codex standard (CXS 193-1995) can serve as a guide. 
  • Example controls: sorting out affected material (mycotoxins in nuts and grains) or extra processing (glycidyl esters in refined oils). 
  • Supply-chain controls: when a hazard is present before an ingredient reaches the facility, the facility can control it through its suppliers. 
  • Proving that controls work: the chapter covers validating a control (using credible scientific information and, where needed, data from actual operations) and verifying it over time, such as calibrating monitoring instruments, product testing, and regular record review by a qualified person. 

Cadmium action levels (baby and toddler foods) 

  • What it is: draft guidance proposing action levels for cadmium in processed foods for babies and young children (under 2). It is meant to help manufacturers lower cadmium in these products. 
  • Proposed levels: 10 ppb for most fruits, vegetables, and mixtures, and 45 ppb for dry infant cereals. FDA considers the levels achievable when manufacturers use control measures. 
  • How it connects: FDA says Chapter 12, once final, may help companies reduce heavy metal levels and better meet Closer to Zero action levels. 

Resources 

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

What Can We Learn From Low-Moisture Foods and Dry Sanitation?

November 4th, 2026

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend “Advancing Dry Sanitation,” a workshop led by the Cornell Dry Sanitation Research Advisory Council and Kerry. It was truly eye-opening to learn about the technologies available for low-moisture environments, including hot-oil flushing, lasers and dry-ice blasting. The workshop also prompted me to consider how we might adapt or rethink cleaning practices in the fresh produce industry. 

Although the fresh produce industry has historically relied on wet sanitation due to the nature of its commodities, and few commodities currently use dry sanitation. The following are my key takeaways from the conference that may be applied to the fresh produce industry: 

  • Risk-based thinking is essential. Sanitation does not always reduce risk; therefore, it is important to consider the context in which a hazard may occur. 
  • “Treat water as ‘glass’” was one of the key phrases I learned at the workshop. This phrase emphasizes managing water as a potential hazard by prioritizing prevention and responding promptly when water is introduced. This approach involves understanding the hazard, keeping dry areas dry, and ensuring that any water introduced can be managed effectively. 
  •  Understanding the specifics of your operation is essential, including the targets you intend to remove, potential moisture-related risks and the technologies available. Identify the solution best suited to your operational needs. Most importantly, recognize that data without context is difficult to use; establish key performance indicators (KPIs) and understand your baseline metrics. 
  •  Root cause analysis is critical, and the insights gained from an RCA can help operations teams implement appropriate mitigation measures where risks have been identified. 
  •  Hygienic design is essential, regardless of the sanitation method employed. Effective moisture management begins with a hygienic design and requires thorough drying. Ensure that crevices are eliminated and all sources of moisture are controlled. Crevice depth is also important because areas that are difficult to clean, sanitize, and, most importantly, dry can increase risk. 
  • Foster cross-sector communication and collaboration among industry, regulators, academia and engineering firms developing equipment and dry sanitation solutions. Each commodity and operation presents unique challenges that require tailored approaches. While laboratory-scale studies, using surface coupons, provide valuable insights, their findings may not translate directly to commercial operations. Collaboration is needed to bridge the gap between research and practical, industry-relevant solutions. 
  • From a legal perspective, it is important for operations to have a validated sanitation process to demonstrate the effectiveness of cleaning and sanitization. This helps limit recall scope and supports lot segregation. Without a validation step, operations may need to take broader action. 

Relevant Research and Resources for the Produce Industry 

In recent years, the Center for Produce Safety (CPS) has funded several research projects addressing dry sanitation challenges, microbial persistence and cross-contamination risk in fresh produce handling and packing operations. Below are three relevant studies that provide insights into these challenges and potential mitigation strategies. 

This study evaluated the use of superheated steam as a dry sanitation method for fresh produce handling practices, and it focused on pathogen inactivation, surface compatibility and operational feasibility.  

This research investigated Listeria monocytogenes persistence and cross-contamination in dry avocado packing facilities 

This study investigated the risk factors influencing microbial cross-contamination during dry handling of fresh produce, specifically in onions and stone fruits.  

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

Join the Upcoming USDA and FBI Webinar on Produce Industry Faud Prevention

November 4th, 2026

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will host a free webinar this Thursday, November 5, at 10:30 a.m. PT, addressing fraud prevention in the produce industry. 

This webinar will focus on fraudulent schemes targeting buyers, sellers and transporters across fruit and vegetable supply chains.  

No registration is required. Produce industry members are encouraged to join the discussion to better understand emerging fraud risks and ways to protect their operation. More information can be found here. 

 

Webinar details: 

Date: Thursday, November 5, 2026 

Time: 10:30 a.m. PT 

Meeting ID: 279 834 785 666 187 

Passcode: wM6LK3aD 

Join the webinar here

Posted in News | No Comments »

What a Great Week in the Pacific Northwest for AgTech!

November 3rd, 2026

I was up in Seattle and Yakima a couple of weeks back and it was a great week for both the Pacific Northwest (PNW) and AgTech. Here are the highlights:

1. Erik Benson – take a bow for the second annual AgTech CEO Summit.

Held on Monday in the Seattle area. In just two years, Erik has built one of the coolest events in AgTech. This is what you would build if you could build something from scratch and that’s exactly what Erik did. He took his network of startup CEOs, investors, growers and industry relationships and built a hand-built, curated VIP list and then built a really, really (really) great set of content from the folks that are doing the work to make the real results happen. It was a small but awesome room of folks from each of those 4 groups. If you weren’t there, you should work hard to get a ticket for the third annual event (which will be on Monday, August 30, 2027 in Chicago the day before Farm Progress starts).

Why was it so awesome? Erik brings the street cred from both his farming background and his passion for ag and AgTech plus additional street cred from actually looking at and investing in AgTech startups at Voyager Capital. If you’re not following him on LinkedIn, you should. His posts are among the most thought-provoking in AgTech. He’s not afraid to take positions on tough topics and even if we don’t agree his positions are always well thought out. If anything, he can be accused of having a “selling your book” bias towards the startups he’s actually decided to invest in. I give every investor a pass on this one – they just made the tough call to invest their LPs (and often their own) capital into a startup that likely has a 95% chance of ending badly. You can be excused for being a cheerleader. The street cred on the grower and investor side, the well thought out posts, and a great run event that’s two years old – that’s a trifecta few folks have in the space and Erik’s stuff is must read. And I can say that if he ever does a Newsletter or a podcast, that will be on the “must read / listen” list for me as well. Really fantastic job in Seattle Erik – already have year 3 on the calendar as it gives me a good reason to stick around for Farm Progress when it’s done! The only complaint about the event – it ended way too fast and I didn’t get a chance to talk to a lot of folks for more than 2-3 minutes (which is the complaint you want for your events!)

2. FIRA USA 2026

Year 5 of FIRA USA and the GOFAR team took things on the road. This year – after 4 years in Fresno, Salinas, and Yolo County (2x), the event was up in Yakima Valley at the County Fairgrounds. Once again automation was the big focus and my friends in the Pacific Northwest and at GOFAR did themselves very proud. The biggest different beyond the location was the obvious focus on tree fruit given the new location. Kudos to Ines Hanrahan, the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission, and Steve Mantle (Founder and CEO, Innov8.ag) for making sure the right folks were at Yakima Fairgrounds and the right content was on multiple stages throughout the 3 days. From my perspective, I always watch when people arrive and how long they stay. And in Yakima those metrics had some great results. There were some new wrinkles to the format – a “self driving” parade of robots for the robot led by Ben Palone and Lucie Cahierre that showed off how far autonomous vehicles have come and an awards ceremony for growers who are providing the most support and help for AgTech startups with some very worthy award winners. It’s important to show off the new tech layers making progress and even more important to appreciate the growers who help make the magic happen with the startups.

3. FIRA USA 2027 Announcement

FIRA USA 2027 has been announced and will be in Florida. Exact details still being worked out – it looks like it will be near the University of Florida campus near Tampa. This puts it a couple of hours from one of the biggest AI for AgTech efforts – spurred on by a $100M gift from the Nvidia co-founder not named Jensen Huang! What can we expect in Florida? Well, clearly a crop shift back towards some of the specialty crops grown in Florida. The big question is can Mike Joyner and the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association recruit growers in region as effectively as Ines (I say yes!) and can Scott Angle and the U of F team recruit startups and innovators as effectively as Steve and his posse (I say yes again! But both will need some real work!) You can expect 3 more days of automation focused content with some content helping growers understand the tech that is here now and ready to work for them as well as the tech that’s coming soon but not quite ready for prime time. And of course, as always, some great demos!

4.Reservoir Announcement

At FIRA USA, Reservoir announced that their first Pacific Northwest location will open up in Prosser. The details are still being worked out. It’s another impressive geographic expansion for Danny Bernstein and team. This expands the locations from Salinas and Sonoma in California (Merced coming) and Yuma to now include Washington state. As with other locations, each location will have it’s own crop focus and Prosser will be no different. Look for a big focus on tree crops – particularly apples. As with the other locations, startups will benefit from shared R&D space, shared commercially grown acreage, and shared equipment (including John Deere tractors). The ongoing goal is to help startups get to first product cheaper and faster.

It was a great week in the Pacific Northwest! Well done Erik Benson and Voyager; Ines, Steve, and GOFAR in Yakima; and the Reservoir team for another great pending launch – my trips to Yakima are always fun but this one had some real action to it and it was great to see!

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

New Herbicide May Offer Possibilities in Organics

November 3rd, 2026

Western Growers Association is committed to supporting innovations that have transformative potential in specialty crop farming. WGA’s new Crop Optimization program is focused on scouting, vetting, and commercializing innovations that help solve real crop protection and production problems.     

Transformation is the key word. From Latin, trans means across or beyond. Forma means form or shape. As a verb, transformation means taking on a new shape. A transformational innovation in agriculture is one that changes, for the better, the way an entire agricultural system is organized or the way a particular farming activity is carried out.    

Historically, big transformational innovations in agriculture have included refrigerated transportation, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, and drip irrigation. But smaller transformations in operational processes or a farming practice can accumulate significant improvements to growers’ bottom line.   

The WGA Innovation team is taking a hard look at Harpe Bio as a potential transformative innovation for sucker thinning in organic raspberries.     

Today, sucker thinning in raspberries is done manually. Multi-person labor crews pass through the field about two or three times per season using knives or hand shears to remove suckers. Growers tell me that manual sucker removal comes at a cost of roughly $2,000 to $3,000 per acre per season. The work is laborious and slow. The job is often delayed because field crews are needed on more urgent tasks, which means when they do get to the job the suckers are larger and harder to remove.  

Contrast this to sucker thinning in conventional raspberries, which is done chemically. Growers apply herbicide, commonly Shark, to the crown of the plant using a small tractor-mounted spray boom. This task is executed by one individual to mix the tank and drive the tractor. Managing suckers in this relatively labor-efficient way is only possible because a suitable herbicide is available. I have not collected economics on chemical sucker removal, but I expect this to run growers about $300 per acre for herbicide product, tractor fuel, and wages for the tractor driver.   

A high-efficacy organic herbicide would be transformative in that sucker management tomorrow would look completely different to what it does today. Can Harpe unlock significant cost savings by bringing sucker thinning costs down to $300 per acre? If yes, this would be a $1,700 to $2,700 per acre budget relief.   

Hape Bio is a new organic contact herbicide that will soon be on the market in California. The team recently received OMRI listening and Harpe is working its way through EPA and CDPR registration. EPA places Harpe’s active ingredients in the 25(b) category as a minimum risk pesticide so registration is expected to be quick. Daniel Pepitone, COO and Co-Founder, says Harpe should be commercially available in California in the first quarter of 2027.        

Why is Harpe noteworthy when there are other organic herbicides already available? Suppress and Homeplate are the two options in California.  Both are contact herbicides that share the same active ingredients and proportions: caprylic acid (~45%) and capric acid (~35%). Interestingly, even though both  have similar formulations, only Homeplate is allowed for sucker removal in California. In my conversations with raspberry growers, Homeplate is not commonly used for sucker removal due to unsatisfactory efficacy. Harpe Bio’s active ingredients are different. The primary ingredient is menthol derived from corn mint. Carvone is derived from spearmint and central from lemongrass. So, Harpe is completely different chemically which makes it worth testing. But most importantly, Harpe may just kill weeds and suckers better than the other options. One third-party weed efficacy trial showed Harpe definitively outperformed Suppress. After 20 days, Harpe burndown was 98% while Suppress burndown was 44% across five seed species. Having a new herbicide on the market, with truly new active ingredients and strong third-party efficacy data, is reason to investigate. 

Let’s assume Harpe is exceptionally good at sucker burn down and growers adopt the innovation. What is the economic benefit to California organic raspberry growers? The USDA Certified Organic Survey 2021 reported 2,294 acres of organic raspberries planted in that year. Let’s assume that acreage is now up to 2,500 in 2026. My rough math, based on grower conversations, suggests that organic chemical sucker removal would put about $1,700 to $2,700 per acre back in growers’ pockets. Simple multiplication puts the total economic gain for California raspberry growers at $4.25 and $6.75 million, assuming 100% replacement of manual sucker removal with chemical sucker removal.  

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

Western Growers and The Wonderful Company Explore the Future of Agtech

November 3rd, 2026

On October 28, 2026, Western Growers welcomed executives from The Wonderful Company to Reservoir Farms for an immersive agtech field experience highlighting innovations poised to shape the future of agriculture. As a leading advocate for agricultural innovation, Western Growers brought together growers, technology providers, startup founders, and industry leaders to demonstrate how emerging technologies are helping producers address labor, water, efficiency, and sustainability challenges across the agricultural value chain.

The visit began with a networking breakfast, where representatives from Western Growers, The Wonderful Company, John Deere, Reservoir Farms, and participating agtech startups connected and discussed the evolving role of technology in modern farming. The gathering reinforced Western Growers’ commitment to accelerating innovation adoption by creating opportunities for growers and technology companies to collaborate in real-world settings.

Following introductions, the Wonderful team participated in a series of live field demonstrations featuring startups currently testing and scaling solutions at Reservoir Farms. Participating companies included Agerpoint, Agtom, Bonsai, FarmBlox, High Degree, Lumo, Niqo, Rootline, and Tensorfield. The demonstrations provided a firsthand look at how technologies ranging from precision sensing and automation to advanced analytics are being deployed to solve practical challenges on the farm. The faster the innovators can “break things,” the faster they can get their technology into the marketplace.

During the walking tour, participants had the opportunity to engage directly with startup founders and technology teams while seeing their innovations in action. These conversations highlighted the critical role Reservoir Farms plays as a proving ground for agricultural innovation, providing an environment where entrepreneurs can rapidly test, refine, and improve their technologies with immediate feedback from growers and industry partners. This collaborative model helps accelerate the development of solutions that are both practical and scalable for commercial agriculture.

The event concluded with an outdoor lunch and a presentation from Danny Bernstein, who shared Reservoir Farms’ current successes and vision for future growth. Bernstein highlighted how strategic partnerships with organizations such as Western Growers and John Deere are helping expand Reservoir Farms’ reach beyond Salinas and Sonoma into key agricultural regions including Yuma, Merced, and Yakima, creating new opportunities to connect innovators with growers across the West.

The visit reinforced Western Growers’ role as a thought leader in agricultural technology and innovation, fostering collaboration among growers, startups, and industry stakeholders to advance the next generation of farming solutions. As a valued member of Western Growers, The Wonderful Company shares a commitment to supporting innovation that strengthens the long-term competitiveness, sustainability, and resilience of agriculture. If you’re a Western Growers member company and would like to organize a demo day at Reservoir Farms, please reach out to the innovation team at [email protected].

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »

Message to Elected Officials: Put Economic Consequences Above All Else

November 4th, 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.

Tags:
Posted in October / November / December 2026 Issue | No Comments »

FIRA USA 2026: A New State, New Opportunities, and a Strong Future for Agricultural Robotics

November 3rd, 2026

For the first time in five years, FIRA USA ventured outside California, bringing one of the country’s premier agricultural robotics events to Yakima, Washington. While the scenery and crops changed, the mission remained the same: bringing growers, technology companies, researchers, and industry leaders together to accelerate the development and adoption of agricultural automation.

With more than 2,000 attendees, strong participation from local growers and an impressive lineup of field demonstrations, FIRA USA 2026 demonstrated the continued momentum behind agricultural robotics.

A Strong Start: Western Growers VIP Dinner

The week began Monday evening with a VIP dinner led by Western Growers, bringing together growers, technology companies, and industry leaders for an evening of networking, collaboration and some friendly competition between California and Washington agriculture.

These opportunities are an important part of what makes FIRA valuable. While field demonstrations showcase what technologies can do, the conversations between growers and technology developers help determine what those technologies need to do next.

For Western Growers Innovation, creating opportunities for these conversations remains a priority, helping ensure technology development aligns with the operational and economic realities of commercial farming.

RESERVOIR Expands into Washington

Another significant announcement came from RESERVOIR Farms, which unveiled plans for a new location in Prosser, Washington.

The expansion represents an important opportunity to accelerate agricultural technology development and validation in the Pacific Northwest. With Washington’s substantial specialty crop production, particularly apples, cherries and pears, the region offers unique opportunities for robotics companies to develop and validate technologies under real-world commercial conditions.

The expansion also reinforces the importance of building an agricultural innovation ecosystem that connects growers, technology developers, and validation resources across multiple growing regions.

From Conference Conversations to Orchard Demonstrations

Throughout the conference, attendees had opportunities to engage with technology companies and see equipment demonstrated in the field.

One of the week’s highlights came Thursday, following the main conference, when attendees visited a commercial apple orchard for additional live demonstrations.

Several technologies stood out, including Mini GUSS, Burro equipped with SBW’s smart spraying and integrated implement control technologies, and Kingman Ag demonstrating its autonomy retrofit solution.

From purpose-built autonomous machines to retrofit solutions that leverage existing equipment, growers were able to evaluate different approaches to automation against the realities of their operations.

The Home Field Advantage

Having spent the previous several years helping turn parking lots into demonstration farms for FIRA USA in California, I understand firsthand the effort required to make these events successful.

This year, Washington had the home field advantage, and the local team made the most of it.

A special recognition goes to Ines Hanrahan, whose leadership, dedication, and ability to bring people together have been instrumental in making FIRA USA what it is today. Ines understands that successful events are not simply about showcasing impressive machines. They are about building relationships, creating meaningful opportunities for growers, and ensuring the agricultural robotics ecosystem continues moving forward.

Her commitment, alongside the GOFAR team and Washington’s local agricultural partners, helped make the transition to Yakima a success.

Looking Ahead: Florida in 2027

FIRA USA 2026 demonstrated that agricultural robotics innovation is not confined to one state, crop, or growing region.

With FIRA USA heading to Florida in 2027, the event will have another opportunity to engage a new agricultural community, showcase different specialty crops, and introduce technology companies to new operational challenges.

Congratulations to Ines, GOFAR, the Washington State Tree Fruit Association and everyone involved in making FIRA USA 2026 a success. California passed the baton to Washington, and now Washington will pass it to Florida, continuing the mission of accelerating practical, commercially viable solutions for growers.

Tags:
Posted in News | No Comments »