Scientific principles are not just important for doctors and researchers, they are also critically important – or should be – for California policymakers and the decisions that they are involved in creating. I spend a great portion of my day reading through bills to determine whether or not the provisions will have an impact, positive or negative, on Western Growers members. I’m fascinated by those legislative ideas that make profound changes to how employers, employees, and consumers engage in the California marketplace based upon “science.” 

 You see, legislation doesn’t need to be based upon any real science in order for it to be introduced and passed by the California Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom. This can be quite troublesome because facts are not needed to show necessity for the bill. In truth, facts are often intentionally ignored! In addition, passage of the bill may even lead to unintended and unforeseen consequences. It is for these reasons that decisions that require scientific rigor and a full review of the scientific record are best left at the appropriate regulatory agency level.   

This isn’t to say that rulemaking at the agency level is easy or that we always get realistic or feasible outcomes; often we don’t. However, science is not as easily ignored. A great example of this came about in 2005 following conversation at the legislative level for an outdoor heat illness prevention program to be put in place for all outdoor employees; especially focused on protection for farmworkers. WG was the main lead along with other key industry allies in moving that conversation to Cal/OSHA where all stakeholders could voice their opinions, concerns, support, etc. to division staff who utilized sound science to determine the best methods to protect outdoor workers from heat illness. While the heat illness prevention standard passed by Cal/OSHA in 2005 was not perfect, it relied on human biology, workplace operations, and economic considerations in order to operationalize an effective program that could be understood and adhered to by employers and employees. Left up to the Legislature, the mandate of this program would have really been a top-down approach telling employers to implement this program, this way, and we don’t have to consider the scientific facts about whether this will actually safeguard employees.  

WG and other industry allies are having similar conversations around California’s crop protection policy. We have seen bills over the past several years that have aimed to prohibit or add unreasonable restrictions (a de facto prohibition) on specific pesticides. These types of bills are very challenging to defeat because bill sponsors and legislators often are not concerned about the science. Passage of the bill just “feels” like the right thing to do. Serious consideration of the opportunity costs is not focused on. These costs could be the inability to grow a specific commodity in California, increased pest and disease pressure and fewer produce choices for consumers. It is important that scientific decisions on these products be left at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) where scientists review active ingredients and ensure that approved products are safe for use per the label. This role at DPR is only going to become more vital as the state begins to focus on reviewing and registering alternatives to the existing crop protection toolbox.  

I am not a scientist nor do I play one at the Capitol. My role is to help identify those policy areas that require scientific input and to advocate for that conversation to take place within the appropriate forum. At the end of the day 2+2 is not 5, 6, or 10. It’s still 4. No amount of “feeling” changes that fact.