OCTOBER — DECEMBER 2026
CELEBRATING EDWIN CAMP WESTERN GROWERS 2026 AWARD OF HONOR RECIPIENT
Features
WESTERN GROWERS AG LEGAL NETWORK DIRECTORY 20
CONNECTIONS, CONNECTIONS, CONNECTIONS CELEBRATING EDWIN CAMP, THE WESTERN GROWERS 2026 AWARD OF HONOR RECIPIENT 26
WESTERN GROWER & SHIPPER Published Since 1929 Volume XCVII | Number 4
CALIFORNIA’S AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS AT WORK 32
To enhance the competitiveness and profitability of Western Growers members
WHAT I SAW IN THE FIELDS CHANGED THE WAY I SEE MY FOOD 36 BUILDING A MORE RELIABLE WATER FUTURE 38 PREDICTING THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE 100 YEARS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 42
Dave Puglia President and CEO Western Growers dpuglia@wga.com
Editor Michelle Rivera 949.885.4778 | mrivera@wga.com
Contributors Cierra Allen callen@wga.com Ann Donahue
adonahue@wga.com Michael Escañuelas hello@mescanuelas.com Taylor Lauson tlauson@wga.com Cory Lunde
1KM BELOW THE SURFACE 44
Inside This Issue
clunde@wga.com Brittany Thomas bthomas@wga.com Joel Young jyoung@wga.com Circulation 949.885.2248 | communications@wga.com Advertising Sales Dana Davis 302.750.4662 | dana@tygermarketing.com
4 President’s Notes 6 Law of the Land 8 Advocacy | Federal 10 Advocacy | California 12 Science 14 Innovation 16 Innovation | Outlook 18 Health and Wellness 48 Director Profile
50 WG Member Welcome and Anniversaries 52 WGCIT Resident Profile 54 WG Leadership Program 55 WG News You Can Use 58 Connections 59 Contact Us 60 Updates from the WGCIT 66 Farm Dogs and Barn Cats of Western Growers
Western Grower & Shipper ISSN 0043-3799, Copyright © 2026 by the Western Grower & Shipper is published quarterly by Western Grower & Shipper Publishing Company, a division of Western Growers Service Corp., 6501 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine California 92618. Business and Editorial Offices: 6501 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine California 92618. Accounting and Circulation Offices: Western Grower & Shipper, 6501 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine California 92618. Call (949) 863-1000 to subscribe. Subscription is $25 per year. Foreign subscription is $50 per year. Single copies of issues, $2. Periodicals postage is paid in Irvine, California and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Western Grower & Shipper, PO Box 2130, Newport Beach, California 92658.
TOGETHER.
WGA.COM
3 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
MESSAGE TO ELECTED OFFICIALS: PUT ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES ABOVE ALL ELSE By Dave Puglia, President and CEO
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.
4 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
CALIFORNIA’S WAR ON THE DRIVERLESS TRACTOR By Jason Resnick, Senior Vice President and General Counsel
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.
6 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
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 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. 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 Different risks call for different rules. Protecting Jobs by Losing Them "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."
AGRICULTURE LAND INVESTMENT SALES
ARIZONA & CALIFORNIA
Bobby Wuertz Agriculture Land Advisor bwuertz@landadvisors.com 520.251.1210
landadvisors.com
7 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
A TALE OF TWO TRADE REGIONS By Tracey Chow, Director, Federal Government Affairs
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
8 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
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.]
9 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
GOING BEYOND LOBBYING: PASSIONATE ADVOCACY By Matthew Allen, Vice President, State Government Affairs
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.
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
10 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
Secure a capable, reliable and legal workforce with expert help from Western Growers. Contact our experienced team to see how you can get the best benefits of the H-2A program for Western Growers member-only pricing. CLEAR GUIDANCE. FULL SUPPORT. ZERO GUESSWORK.
To learn more, call 877-942-4529 or email H2A@wga.com
YOUR WORKFORCE.
BEYOND TRACEABILITY Why Solving Foodborne Outbreaks Requires a Systems Approach By Sonia Salas, Associate Vice President, Food Safety and Regulatory Affairs
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?”
12 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
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.
13 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
A CENTURY OF INNOVATION IN THE FIELD How growers have used mechanization, automation and robotics to keep
agriculture productive, resilient and sustainable By Ben Palone, Senior Commercialization Director, Innovation
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
14 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
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 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. plant-level decisions. The Next Frontier
FROST ALERT!
Monitor temperature across multiple orchard locations and know where frost protection is needed most. 4000 Series Cellular Temp/RH Station
Scan Code for Special Offer
800.248.8873 specmeters.com
®
A timeline of how each generation of technology expanded growers' ability to produce, protect quality and make better field-level decisions.
15 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
A TALE OF TWO CITIES Specialty Crop Agriculture 2040 By Walt Duflock, Senior Vice President, Innovation
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 "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."
16 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com October – December 2026
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker