Washington Post Writer Sees Ag Issues with RAISE Act

Disconnect Exists with Urban Politicians, Ruben Navarrette says

By Joanne Lui, Associate Editor

Ruben Navarrette grew up in the Central Valley and is a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group. California Ag Today caught up with him recently at an event in Fresno called the The Latino Paradox: Immigration Forum. He spoke about the RAISE Act S.354, which severely limits immigration into the U.S. because it would be based on education and skills.

Ruben Navarrette

“There’s this disconnect in Washington and New York … mostly urban areas where politicians don’t think much about agriculture, agribusiness,” Navarrette said. “They have no clue about where this fruit is coming from when they walk down the street in New York and they see an orange. They don’t understand how dangerous something like the RAISE Act would be if you ultimately limit the amount of people who come here based on education and skills.”

The RAISE Act will limit immigration from Latin American countries. Meanwhile, U.S.-born citizens don’t go out to work in the fields.

“I think there’s a lot of people who wrongly believe that American workers will do those jobs if the wages are high enough, and the way they tell the story [is] to make the agribusiness and the farmers into the bad guy,” Navarrette said. “If you know enough farmers and you go out into enough fields and you interview enough farmers and enough workers, you know that’s completely false. Farmers could be in business for 30 years and never in 30 years have they ever had an American come to them and say, ‘Can I pick peaches?’ ”

With the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals act (DACA), if dreamers are sent back, there are questions about what may happen with their parents.

“If they go back, the parents may ultimately self-deport as well and that’s going to be disruptive,” Navarrette said. “Clearly it’s a mistake for us to believe that sort of agriculture and DACA, they’re all separate from each other. The issues are all intertwined. When a farm worker is working in a field, he cares about whether the local police have the authority to detain him, if he’s pulled over. He cares because he has kids who are in the DACA Program, so farming isn’t necessarily segregated. The farm workers are piped into all these different issues.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2017-09-22T16:02:29-07:00September 22nd, 2017|

Who Safeguards CA Farm Workers’ Rights? # 7 – CA Supreme Court

CA Supreme Court Hears Case of Gerawan Farming, Inc. vs. UFW/ ALRB

By Laurie Greene, Founding Editor

Gerawan Farm Workers Show Company IDs and Paystubs (Identification has been blurred out for privacy reasons.)

A significant labor hearing occurred at the California Supreme Court (Court) in San Francisco yesterday, the day after Labor Day, between the team of the United Farm Workers (UFW) and the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or Board) versus Fresno County-based Gerawan Farming, Inc. over self-determination. At stake is the right of farm workers to determine if they want to be represented by the union or not. Under scrutiny is the Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation (MMC) provision of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act that paves the road for the UFW to force unionization on all farm workers.

Anthony Raimondo, of Fresno-based Raimondo & Associates, lawyer for Gerawan farm worker spokesperson, Silvia Lopez

“Although Gerawan farm workers attempted to participate in this hearing, as well as other hearings, they were denied legal participation in the trial by the state of California and by the UFW,” according to Anthony Raimondo, of Fresno-based Raimondo & Associates and lawyer for Gerawan farm worker spokesperson, Silvia Lopez. Nevertheless, hundreds of Gerawan employees in blue t-shirts attended the proceedings and protested outside the courthouse, lending their voices, exercising their free speech and showing their legitimate Gerawan company ID cards and payroll stubs.

Dan Gerawan, who co-owns Gerawan Farming, Inc., with his brother Mike and father Ray, commented on the court hearing just after it ended. “It is frightening to see the deference that the Court gives to the ALRB. Everyone in our industry and all farm workers should be scared by the deference this Court gives to a Board that is clearly not interested in the employees’ best interests.” Describing his perceptions in the courtroom, Gerawan said, “It was Orwellian to hear the government attorneys argue that they are defending self-determination, when in fact, what they are doing is the exact opposite.”

“That said,” he continued, “I am encouraged by the questions I heard from the Court. They obviously are taking this very seriously, and I’m hopeful that they will side with our employees and us.”

Silvia Lopez, Gerawan farm worker spokesperson

Members of the UFW were also present at the Court in red t-shirts, though only one person claimed to be a Gerawan employee. Marc Grossman, spokesperson for the United Farm Workers of America and communications director of the Cesar Chavez Foundation, said that the Gerawan operation should be unionized because the UFW was elected in 1990 by Gerawan farm workers and certified in 1992 by the ALRB.

However, the UFW did not successfully reach a contract for the Gerawan farm workers, and therefore did not collect dues. Furthermore, the UFW abandoned the Gerawan farm workers for nearly 20 years.

Grossman said the Court discussed today the long-standing principle that a union is certified until it is decertified. Workers have a right to decertify the union but it has to be the workers—not the company. It is patently illegal for an employer to have anything to do with determining union representation by his or her employees.

Marc Grossman, spokesperson for the United Farm Workers of America

When asked to account for UFW abandonment of Gerawan farm workers, Grossman said, “Bogus issue! The UFW never abandoned the workers at Gerawan. It repeatedly attempted to negotiate with Gerawan. At every step, it was met with virulent resistance by the company. It became apparent that only a law that would allow neutral state mediators to be brought in to hammer out a union agreement when the grower refused to do so would be the only course, and we followed it.”

Grossman asked us to read the September 5 ‘News from UFW’ press release he provided, entitled, “Giant grower challenging law giving farm workers the union contracts they voted for already owes its workers $10 million under a state-imposed union contract.” Here are excerpts:

What about Gerawan’s claim the union “abandoned” the workers for 20 years?

Even before the Mandatory Mediation statute was adopted in 2002, the ALRB and the courts consistently rejected employer claims that unions should not be deemed workers’ bargaining representatives if they allegedly “abandoned” them. It is long-established law that a union remains certified as bargaining representative until workers—and only workers—vote to decertify it. At the time of the law’s passage in 2002, Gerawan was one of the 243 companies where farm workers voted for the UFW but the companies never agreed to contracts. (See UFW-Gerawan chronology)

1995-2002: Gerawan workers and the UFW continued working to improve conditions while the ALRB stopped enforcing the farm labor law under Republican political appointees.

2002: The Mandatory Media law was enacted. The agricultural industry mounted a major constitutional challenge.

2006: The Third District Court of Appeals in Sacramento upheld the Mandatory Mediation law. The industry appealed to the state Supreme Court, which refused to take the case. The industry declined an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court—and the law’s constitutionality was settled.

2012: The UFW sent a new negotiations request to Gerawan. At least 10 bargaining sessions failed to produce a union contract.

March 2013: The UFW requested mandatory mediation at Gerawan with the ALRB.

The above chronology vaguely refers to UFW involvement between 1995 and 2002 that remains unsubstantiated. UFW contact with Gerawan farm workers appears to have been reestablished in 2012.

Dan Gerawan, co-owner Gerawan Farming, Inc.

The ALRB did supervise a sanctioned election for Gerawan farm workers to decertify the UFW on November 5, 2013; however, the ballots were collected, sealed and never counted.

When told that UFW representative Grossman said they never walked away, Gerawan asked, “If they didn’t abandon, then where were they for almost two decades? They did not phone us or send us a fax. They did not show up on our property. They did not inquire on behalf any of our employees. They did not file an unfair labor practice. They did nothing during that time. They abandoned our employees.”

Ron Barsamian, attorney for Gerawan Farming, Inc.

One of Gerawan’s attorneys, Ron Barsamian, managing shareholder of Fresno-based Barsamian & Moody, stated, “I’m very encouraged. I think the Justices’ questions indicated that they understood the issue we were raising. I think they certainly read the briefs. I think they understand the difficulty in how locked-in workers, such as the [Gerawan] ones behind us, can be under the way this law works: if you have an MMC contract, [the workers] never have an opportunity to decertify the union. Even the questions asked by the justices that we expected to be against us were great, and I certainly loved the answers that Mr. Schwartz gave.”

David Schwarz, attorney for Gerawan Farming, Inc.

Barsamian was referring to another Gerawan attorney, David Schwarz, from the law firm, Irell & Manella, who addressed the central issues of the case: “I think it was a full and fair hearing. I think the Court—all members—are deeply concerned about the unaccounted for two-decade [UFW] absence, an unaccountable power given to a mediator [ALRB], and uncheckable power given to the union [UFW] to compel one grower and one group of employees into this process. Ultimately, I think the justices were very much focused on and troubled by the inability of the [ALRB] agency to step in in a situation of gross abandonment where a contract is being imposed by that agency.”

The California Supreme Court typically releases it decisions and commentaries after 90 days.

Protesting are Gerawan farm workers (in blue) and UFW members (in red)

Who Safeguards Farm Worker Rights? – Part 8

Pick Justice, Gerawan Farm Workers Protest Forced Unionization

California Ag Today2019-12-25T15:44:52-08:00September 6th, 2017|

Who Safeguards CA Farm Workers’ Rights? Part 5

Post-Labor Day, Forced Unionization Hearing at CA Supreme Court

By Laurie Greene, Founding Editor

Forced Unionization Hearing

On Tuesday, Sept. 5, one day after Labor Day, busloads of concerned farmers and farm workers will arrive at the Supreme Court of California in San Francisco to support Gerawan Farming and farm workers—and quite possibly 80,000 family farms in the state—against forced unionization in the first case on the Court’s agenda: Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (United Farm Workers of America, Real Party in Interest) and Consolidated Case, S227243 (Kline, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore).

Gerawan Case History

Explaining the case history, David Schwarz, attorney for Gerawan Farming, Inc. from the Los Angeles-based law firm of Irell & Manella LLP, said, “This case began almost five years ago in mid-October of 2012. The United Farm Workers (UFW) sent a letter to Gerawan Farming demanding that the company resume bargaining over a collective bargaining agreement. The UFW had won an election at Gerawan in 1990 and was certified to represent the workers by the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) in 1992. After one preliminary negotiating session in early 1995, the union disappeared and wasn’t heard from by Gerawan for nearly 20 years.”

“The UFW resurfaced in late 2012 demanding negotiations,” Schwarz stated, “but after ten bargaining sessions, the union abandoned the bargaining table.” This scenario was similar to UFW’s behavior after having won several certification elections by California farm workers employed on separately-owned farms but was unable to obtain first contracts with many growers on behalf of these farm workers.

Farm Worker Rights under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act

According to the ALRB website, all agricultural employees in California, whether or not they are represented by a labor organization (union), have certain rights under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA or Act). The purpose of the Act is to ensure peace in the agricultural fields by guaranteeing justice for all agricultural workers and stability in labor relations. The ALRA became law in 1975.

The Act describes and protects the rights of agricultural employees to make their own decisions about whether or not they want a union to negotiate with their employer about their wages, hours, and other working conditions. Where the employees, through a secret ballot election, have selected a union to represent them, the Act requires that the employer bargain in good faith with the union concerning wages, hours, and other working conditions.

The Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) is the state agency established to enforce the Act.

Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation (MMC)

“At this juncture, UFW invoked a process known as “Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation (MMC), a euphemism for forced-contracting, passed by the legislature in 2002 at the behest of UFW,” Schwarz explained. “Through MMC, the State of California imposes a contract on the employer and its farm workers at the union’s request. In Gerawan’s case, the failure to reach a contract can be explained by the failure of the UFW to show up and attempt to negotiate; however, that failure to bargain—or for that matter, the union’s complete abandonment of the Gerawan farm workers—was deemed irrelevant in the eyes of the ALRB.”

“The ALRB argued that the union certification in 1992 means the UFW remains the perpetual representative of Gerawan workers now and forever,” said Schwarz, “and until such time as the workers vote the union out through a petitioned election process known as decertification.” The ALRB disregarded both UFW’s failure to represent Gerawan farm workers in any successful contract negotiation and the UFW’s failure to qualify to collect union dues from Gerawan farm workers. Most significantly, the ALRB disregarded the legally-sanctioned and ALRB-supervised election on November 5, 2013, in which Gerawan farm workers had the opportunity to vote to decertify the UFW or not—the ballots of which have never been counted and are believed to be stored in an unknown, unsecured location.

“Let’s be clear,” Schwarz explained, “at no point after this union was certified until this union invoked the MMC process, was there an allegation that Gerawan refused to show up or refused to negotiate the terms of the contract. So this is not a case about a grower refusing to show up at the bargaining table or a grower inserting that the abandonment forfeits the right of the union to bargain.”

“Rather, this is a case about whether or not the union’s abandonment means that it forfeits the right to compel the State of California to force a contracting process on the workers. And that’s the key difference: between duty to bargain, which is a continuous bargain, and the right, as the union claims, to impose a state-ordered contract.”

What is at Stake for Farm Workers?

Tal Cloud, president and co-founder of Fresno-based family-owned Paper Pulp & Film, Inc., a converter of printing and industrial papers, including raisin (drying) trays, is part of the team that organized the trip. Cloud said, “The UFW and the California ALRB are hoping the California Supreme Court will rule in their favor by forcing unionization on California farms and farm workers—the next flash point in the two-decade long battle between Gerawan Farming and the UFW.”

“People don’t understand that this is incrementalism,” Cloud said. “If the California Supreme Court rules against Gerawan, it literally puts every agricultural operation of any size in the state right in the “bulls-eye” for mandatory UFW unionization, and that is what is so concerning. And although people do not understand it, the laws are already all there; they just need to be formalized. So, yes, it is really scary.”

“The ALRB has power in these courts due to California legislators who have given the ALRB all these powers, but without checks or balances,” said Cloud. “So, you have an agency that basically plays god with people’s lives and there are no legitimate governmental organizations or courts looking at it, until now that [the forced unionization case] has come to the California Supreme Court.”

The upcoming California Supreme Court hearing follows the UFW’s appeal of a lower court ruling in favor of Gerawan on the same issue in 2015. “We are hoping that the Court goes by the law, and does not give [the ALRB and UFW] this kind of opportunity to really put all of our operations in California at risk for forced unionization and forced contracts,” Cloud said.

“The bus trip on Tuesday is to make a statement and not sit by silently. The hearing is at 9:00 A.M., and more than 300 people from the Valley are going. We are leaving at 3:30 AM, providing food for our passengers and protesting outside the Supreme Court. The UFW also will be rallying at the Supreme Court.

It remains uncertain if farm workers will be allowed inside the courtroom. Cloud said, “There has already been a lot of back and forth about not allowing any farm workers, or Silvia Lopez (the Gerawan farm worker spokesperson) into the courtroom. The attorneys are still fighting on that. But there will be a big protest, so to speak, outside.”

“There are public areas for us to be in, and we will be peaceful like all the other demonstrations that we have done,” Cloud said. “My hope is that everyone stays safe and we do not have extremists or rabble-rousers there who try to cause problems.”

Cloud said there is a glimmer of hope for the farming industry because the UFW lost to the lower courts. “But, you just don’t know. We are hoping these farmers, farm workers and protesters will bring attention to this issue,” he said.

Once the California Supreme Court hearing is completed, the court will have 90 days to make its ruling. “The reality is: If agriculture does not get behind the effort against MMC now, and the California Supreme Court reverses the lower court’s decision, literally every farming organization in California could face unionization. And that is a scary thought,” said Cloud.

“Likewise, if the ruling goes against the UFW,” Cloud said, “I am sure the case will go to United States Supreme Court, which would certainly be a do-or-die point for agriculture.”

Who Safeguards CA Farm Workers’ Rights? Part 6 – Facts vs. PR

California Ag Today2019-12-25T15:36:31-08:00September 4th, 2017|

Developing On-Site Rescue Plans for Worker Safety

Western Agricultural Processors Association Seeks to Improve Worker Safety

By Melissa Moe, Associate Editor

Agricultural work can be very dangerous when working in confined spaces. If a worker was to receive an injury, such as a heart attack or even just a sprained ankle while down in a pit, they would be unable to climb a ladder to safety. It is important for workers to be aware of these dangers and have a plan to rescue others in times of emergency.

Roger Isom is the president and CEO of the Western Agricultural Processors Association, representing California’s almond hullers and cotton ginners. We spoke with Isom about the dangers of working in confined spaces, and what producers can do to keep workers safe.

“Confined spaces are basically just an area you’re not normally working in, where if something happened, it would be very difficult to get you out of that hole, or out of that silo, or out of that baghouse. It’s a permanent required confined space, difficult to get in and out of, like a pit,” said Isom.

In an ongoing effort to increase safety awareness, the Western Agricultural Processors Association is conducting specialized confined spaces training workshops.

“The training that’s going on involves recognizing when and where you have confined spaces, what kind of safety plan you need to have in place, and what kind of rescue plan you need to have in place, so in the event someone does get hurt or has an illness, you can rescue them,” he said.

Most confined spaced accidents are completely preventable and involve workers who do not have a well thought out, organized plan. It is important to have these plans in place so that everyone returns home to their families at the end of the day.

“Nine times out of ten, a confined space accident is where somebody goes in to rescue the person that’s down. Maybe you’ve got a gas leak. You see the guy laying down in the pit as you walk by and think, “Oh my gosh, I gotta go down there and get him.” Then you’re overcome. Then the next guy comes along and he’s overcome by the gas,” Isom said.

“This is why companies need a rescue plan,” he explained.

Patrick Cavanaugh2017-05-22T15:14:29-07:00May 22nd, 2017|

Safe Food Alliance Helps Farmers Cope with MRL Disharmony

California Farmers Cope with MRL Disharmony

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

California farmers are careful with crop protection products because they know the importance of producing safe and wholesome food for their customers across the nation and in their export markets. “However, I think that there are some real challenges facing growers in California today,” said Thomas Jones, senior analytical services director for the Fresno-based Safe Food Alliance.

“As growers send their commodities around the world, they’re facing increasing challenges of knowing the right chemicals to apply and at what levels. We have our own strict regulations within California, if needed, [that govern] not only the application but also the maximum residue levels (MRL) or tolerances allowed for various crops,” said Jones.

Thomas Jones, senior analytical services director, Safe Food Alliance

“That’s also carried onto the federal level; we have very strict EPA regulations. But as we [export] into other countries, they may have entirely different regulations,” said Jones. He noted this could be confusing not only to farmers, but also to registrants of crop protection materials because there is a lack of standardization of MRLs in different countries.

“Historically, there was the CODEX system, a UN-based system geared towards a more international standard for pesticide residues. It was very thought out, and very scientifically based,” Jones said.

However, as Jones explained, many countries do not want to follow the important scientific standard. “Increasingly, we are seeing countries want to establish their own systems, their own tolerances. They may be responding to their own political pressures within their countries.”

“We are seeing a process called ‘deharmonization’ in which every country wants to establish its own positive list of what is allowed and what is not allowed in [farm] products. Sometimes, those are in agreement with U.S. regulations and California state regulations; sometimes they are not. So it is important that [our] growers know not only what is legal in this country and in our state, but also what is allowed in their target [export] markets.”

Jones commented it is now known that some of these marketers [apply] random low MRLs and keep other MRLs high on some of their own products in order to get a marketing edge. “Some of those MRLs may or may not be based on any scientific standards.”

“There are a number of great tools out there,” he said. “There are a number of great software programs. Obviously, anything that [information growers] can get out of the print media or any educational courses are really essential. It is important to work with your Pest Control Adviser (PCA), as well. It’s important that [farmers] know what they are up against, as far as growing these crops,” said Jones.

The Safe Food Alliance is available to growers to help them qualify to meet the standards in the U.S. and abroad. “We [provide] training twice a year on fumigation safety for the various processors of dried fruits and tree nuts. We focus particularly on commodity fumigations and on what treatments are allowed and not allowed. We also have a full-service pesticide-testing laboratory and are very aware of the requirements in these other countries, so we’re happy to help both processors and growers with our monitoring efforts,” noted Jones.

Featured Photo: For these California-grown peaches to be shippable to any out-of-state U.S. consumers or international export markets, they must meet scientific Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs).

C O D E X A L I M E N T A R I U S, the international food standards, guidelines and codes of practice contribute to the safety, quality and fairness of the international food trade. Begun in 1963, Codex standards are based on the best available science assisted by independent international risk assessment bodies or ad-hoc consultations organized by Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO). Consumers can trust the safety and quality of the food products they buy and importers can trust that the food they ordered will be in accordance with their specifications.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:05:44-07:00November 28th, 2016|

Gary Schulz Gives California Citrus ACP and HLB Update

California Citrus ACP and HLB Update from Gary Schulz

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

The Citrus Research Board (CRB) recently held their annual California Citrus Conference in Exeter, bringing together a variety of guest speakers and research presentations. The Conference focused on pressing Asian Citrus Psyllid (ACP) and Huanglongbing (HLB) issues, along with political action updates and current projects that are important to the citrus industry. Gary Schulz, president of the CRB, said “We have a 21-member board and we’ve been planning this event for the last 12 months. It’s been 4 years since we held the last conference,” noted Schulz.

Gary Schulz, president, Citrus Research Board

The CRB is responsible for overseeing the California Citrus Research Program (CCRP), a grower-funded and grower-directed program created in 1968 under the California Marketing Act. The CCRP’s purpose to enable California’s citrus producers to sponsor and support research that furthers the overall industry. Therefore, close to 70 percent of the CRB’s overall budget is allocated to research.

Schulz said the Conference “was a great, great day to have a good update on some of the dollars the Citrus Research Board has been spending on the growers’ behalf on research.” Schulz explained HLB represents the single greatest threat that citrus growers have faced worldwide.

For the past seven years, the USDA and Congress have allocated between $10 and $12 million dollars annually for ACP and HLB research operations. Advocacy groups and other supportive ag organizations have contributed the difference to reach an annual ACP and HLB research budget of close to $90 million dollars a year. We fund a lot of UC Riverside and USDA agricultural research, service researchers, plus research at UC Davis and the University of Arizona,” Schulz noted.

Schulz, who has many years of experience in California agriculture, having served as general manager of the Raisin Administrative Committee and CEO of the California Raisin Marketing Board, stated that CRB has a great working relationship with California Citrus Mutual (CCM). “Joel Nelson and CCM have worked very hard with the packers to assess themselves, put together a private foundation, and work with the university,” Schulz said.

Featured Photo: Adult Asian Citrus Psyllid (Source: The Citrus Pest & Disease Prevention Program)

Resources

California Marketing Act

Citrus Research Board (CRB)

California Citrus Mutual

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:05:44-07:00November 18th, 2016|

A Brief History on the Pest Control Adviser and Certified Crop Adviser Programs

Longtime Crop Adviser Helped Increase Job Market for CCA Industry

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

The Certified Crop Adviser Program (CCA) was introduced in 1992 as a means to address the increased concerns regarding agriculture’s contributions to a variety of environmental issues. By 1994, the CCA program was fully established with the support of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, along with the American Society of Agronomy and the California agricultural industry. The program was designed to raise the awareness and professional standards of individuals who make recommendations on agricultural fertilizers, pesticides and related products.

Allan Romander has a long history with the CCA program, having joined the CCA Board in 2004. “I am currently with the Certified Crop Adviser Program in California, and Arizona I might add. I am a consultant with the organization. I just concluded my term as ICCA Chair and past Chair,” Romander said.

Allan Romander, member, California Certified Crop Adviser Board

A Pest Control Adviser (PCA) since 1979, Romander joined the California CCA Board in 2004 and was instrumental in helping to develop a marketing program that nearly doubled the number of CCAs in California in a little less than six years.

California is one of just a few states that require people who advise farmers on pest control management to be licensed as a Pest Control Adviser. Amidst rising public concerns regarding pesticide use on California farms, the PCA program was launched in 1973 to ensure that those who make pesticide recommendations are both qualified and knowledgeable. “But that only certified them in the area of pest management,” Romander said. “It never said anything about their competency in the area of crop management or soil or water management.”

“There has long been a gap between growers and consultants. Consultants historically have just held a Pest Control Adviser’s license,” Romander said. Over time, farmers began to ask their PCAs for guidance on multiple subjects outside of pest control, such as fertilizers and irrigation.

“That’s where the Certified Crop Adviser Program comes in and picks up where the PCA program leaves off. It covers those categories and certifies to a grower that [the adviser] has competency in those other areas,” Romander said.

Currently, there are close to 4,000 EPA-licensed Pest Control Advisers in California. Romander noted, “Eighty-five percent of the Certified Crop Advisers in California are also Pest Control Advisers. So it’s a well-established program and well-respected throughout not only the United States, but North America and the rest of the world.”

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:02:56-07:00November 14th, 2016|

FFA Jackets Giving Tuesday Campaign

FFA Jackets Needed for Members

By Laurie Greene, Associate Editor

We have Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and the newest opportunity, #GivingTuesday—a global day of giving that has grown into a movement uniting people around the world on November 29th, the Tuesday after Thanksgiving.

There’s a big #GivingTuesday campaign for the California FFA to purchase 100 of those iconic blue FFA jackets for members in need.

FFA Members explore a diverse range of opportunities in agriculture

Katie Otto, development director of the California FFA Foundation said, “We have approximately 84,000 members in California, and 324 different chapters. Our members say having a jacket makes them feel like they are a part of something,” she said.

“It’s something that they hold on to. It makes them feel unified in what they’re doing. ‘Not to mention, a lot of our students wear jackets to field days,” Otto noted.

“They wear them at their county fair when they show, at chapter meetings and conferences. The list goes on and on in terms of opportunities where they wear their jackets.”

Each $65 raised will purchase a jacket along with an FFA tie for young men and a scarf for young women.

Black Friday and Cyber Tuesday are all about getting things; #GivingTuesday is set aside for giving. Of course you do not have to wait for #GivingTuesday for the FFA campaign. You can donate anytime, now and even beyond Nov. 29.

How can you donate to the FFA #GivingTuesday campaign? Go to calaged.org/givingtuesday.

Credit cards and Pay Pal accounts are accepted.

California Ag Today2016-11-10T11:09:44-08:00November 8th, 2016|

Nov 9 Annual Ag Awards Luncheon Honors Manuel Cunha, Booth Ranches

Manuel Cunha, Agriculturist of the Year

By Laurie Greene, Editor

On Wednesday afternoon, November 9, the Who’s Who of Agriculture will gather at the long-standing celebratory Annual Ag Awards Luncheon in Valdez Hall at the Fresno Convention Center to commemorate the achievements of an individual and a company in the County’s agricultural industry.

Nathan Ahle, president and CEO of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce, said, “We are very excited about this. This is the 33rd time the Fresno Chamber has presented the Agriculturist of the Year Award, and the 21st time the Fresno-based CPA firm Baker, Peterson and Franklin has presented the Ag Business of the Year Award. We recognize that Ag is really the life-blood of our economy. This event is an honor to do and something we take great pride in.”

This year’s Agriculturist of the Year Award recipient is Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League. “Everybody knows Manuel Cunha—a legend in Valley Ag as president of the Nisei Farmers League for two decades,” Ahle said. “ This gentleman is a force to be recognized with when it comes to fighting for our farmers, fighting for water, fighting for anything and everything that has to do with agriculture in the Central Valley.”

2016 Fresno Chamber of Commerce Agriculturist of the Year recipient, Manuel Cunha, president, Nisei Farmers League.

Nisei Farmers League, established in 1971, informs grower members about ever-changing regulations and policies and provides legal assistance for labor and workplace-related issues. The league’s leadership and staff maintain a close working relationship with local, state and federal agencies and legislators to assure grower interests are adequately understood and defended.

The League also collaborates with other grower and agricultural organizations in California and other states to help provide a powerful and unified voice for the agricultural community. The Nisei Farmers League is all about strength, clear focus and growers looking out for growers and farmworkers.

This year’s Ag Business Award recipient, Booth Ranches, is a premium San Joaquin Valley citrus grower. Otis Booth, Jr. founded Booth Ranches in 1957 on 40 acres by the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Range near Orange Cove.

Today, Booth Ranches is still family owned and operated on acreage from Orange Cove in the Northern San Joaquin Valley to Maricopa in Kern County to the South. Pasadena-born, fifth-generation farmer Loren Booth currently manages Booth Ranches which boasts premium Navel oranges, Valencia oranges, Cara-Caras, Minneolas and W. Murcott Mandarins that are distributed worldwide.

The selection panel went through a tough selection process, according to Ahle. “Those who have been in the Valley longer than I have tell me this is the strongest group of candidates for the award that we have ever had. I think it just speaks to the great passion that we have for Ag in this community, and Manuel Cunha and the team at Booth Ranches are great, great recipients.”

California Ag Today2016-11-10T10:50:56-08:00November 7th, 2016|

FSMA Deadlines and Details

Aspects of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Explained

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

As many 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) provisions near their deadline for the first step in compliance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced an extension for many aspects of the new rules to allow growers and processors more time to clarify certain provisions to ensure compliance. Jon Kimble, food safety services manager with Sacramento-based DFA of California, a non-profit trade association formerly called the Dried Fruit Association, weighed in on several FSMA provisions and compliance.

Jon Kimble, food safety services manager with DFA of California

“The Preventive Controls Rule is the biggie that came out. This rule is largely based on the existing Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) structure that the food industry is familiar with, but with some slight modifications and specifics that are unique to the regulation,” noted Kimble. HACCP is an international standard that defines requirements for effective food safety control from biological, chemical, and physical hazards in the production processes that could cause the finished product to be unsafe.

The Preventive Controls Rules for Human and Animal Food was enacted September 18, for large operations. Small and mid-sized companies will have until September 2017 and very small companies have until September 2018.

The Produce Safety Rule, another critical part of the Food Safety Act that was published last November, provides farm standards for the growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce for human consumption.

The Produce Safety Rule will come into effect for large farming operations within the next month.

Other portions of the act include the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals and Accredited Third-Party Certification, which relate to imported food products. “There are some regulations that you have to comply with whether you are a food processor or a broker importing food,” Kimble explained.

Finalized earlier this year, the Sanitary Transportation Rule pertains to service scenarios where foods are exposed and not packaged. This rule covers food transported in bulk; vehicle cleanliness, design and maintenance, temperature control; prevention of the contamination of ready-to-eat food (from touching raw food, non-food items in the same load or previous load, and cross-contact with food allergen); training of carrier personnel in sanitary transportation practices; documentation of the training; and maintenance and retention of records.

The Sanitary Transportation Rule has a compliance deadline of April 2017 for large companies.

FSMA also includes the Intentional Adulteration Rule, which “relates to what we would traditionally call food defense or security measures to prevent intentional contamination of the food supply,” Kimble said.

Founded in 1908, DFA is one of the oldest food safety companies in the U.S. that provides commodity inspection services and support to packers, processors and exporters in the dried fruit, tree nut, and kindred product industry through commodity inspection, the Red Seal Program, and the Export Trading Company (ETC).

Safe Food Alliance, a new division of DFA of California serves as a resource to the food industry for any and all food safety practices. Services include food safety training and consulting, laboratory testing and analysis, and third party certification audits conducted by Safe Food Certifications, LLC.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:00:48-07:00November 3rd, 2016|

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

California Ag News…
At Your Fingertips!

Disconnect Exists with Urban Politicians, Ruben Navarrette says

By Joanne Lui, Associate Editor

CA Supreme Court Hears Case of Gerawan Farming, Inc. vs. UFW/ ALRB

By Laurie Greene, Founding Editor

Pick Justice, Gerawan Farm Workers Protest Forced Unionization

Post-Labor Day, Forced Unionization Hearing at CA Supreme Court

By Laurie Greene, Founding Editor

Forced Unionization Hearing

Gerawan Case History

Farm Worker Rights under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act

Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation (MMC)

What is at Stake for Farm Workers?

Western Agricultural Processors Association Seeks to Improve Worker Safety

By Melissa Moe, Associate Editor

California Farmers Cope with MRL Disharmony

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

California Citrus ACP and HLB Update from Gary Schulz

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

Resources

Longtime Crop Adviser Helped Increase Job Market for CCA Industry

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

FFA Jackets Needed for Members

By Laurie Greene, Associate Editor

Manuel Cunha, Agriculturist of the Year

By Laurie Greene, Editor

Aspects of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Explained

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

The Preventive Controls Rules for Human and Animal Food was enacted September 18, for large operations. Small and mid-sized companies will have until September 2017 and very small companies have until September 2018.

The Produce Safety Rule will come into effect for large farming operations within the next month.

The Sanitary Transportation Rule has a compliance deadline of April 2017 for large companies.

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

California Ag News… At Your Fingertips!

California Ag News…
At Your Fingertips!