Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
31. For more on the historical development of commodity organizations, see
Friedland and Haight 1985, Pincetl 1999, and Saker 1990. There are now 53
commodity organizations authorized by the state of California and 10 author-
ized by the federal government. In California, 41 serve crop-plant growers and
12 serve seafood, forestry, floriculture, and root-stock agriculture (California
Department of Food and Agriculture 2000). All ten federal marketing orders in
California serve perennial crops. Growers founded and support these to help
with their specialized production and marketing needs. All are semi-public
corporate groups financed by a mandatory tax imposed by a majority vote of
the growers of a specific geographic area. All but a few have the primary purpose
of promoting the marketing of a particular agricultural product through
promotion, advertising, and the imposition of quality standards. Most are also
authorized to fund production research, although usually only a tiny fraction of
organizational budgets are devoted to this. A few California commodity organi-
zations are authorized for research exclusively (“councils” and “commissions”).
32. Bunin 2001.
33. The Almond Board of California, for example, dispenses half a million
dollars per year in production research grants. The Walnut Board dispenses a
roughly equal amount, even though the value of the state's walnut crop is only
one-third the value of its almond crop.
34. The almond industry is large, growing, and high-profile, and its practices
affect multiple environmental media. The almond harvest generates dust
throughout the Central Valley. In the winter, the burning of almond prunings
harms air quality. Any pesticide used by the almond industry is going to attract
a lot of attention, as diazinon has. As towns and cities along Highway 99 sprawl
onto farmland, almond growers are increasingly confronting urban interface
issues. The almond industry is so large that it had to take on these new
responsibilities.
35. See Marthedal 2001.
36. Examples include the Central Coast Vineyard Team, the Napa Sustainable
Winegrape Growers, the Sustainable Cotton Project, and the Ukiah Valley IPM
Pear Growers.
37. See USEPA 1997a.
38. See Andrews 1999. Some states publicly complained about the USEPA's
aggressive stance impinging on states' prerogatives, but at the same time, they
have privately welcomed its initiatives by raising compliance standards and
strengthening their negotiating positions.
39. Examples of agencies providing small grants in California: Resource
Conservation Districts and USDA programs, National Resource Conservation
Districts, the Cooperative State Research and Extension Service, and Western
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. A few agencies awarded large
grants to one or two partnerships (CalFed, the State Water Quality Control
Board, or the California Department of Food and Agriculture).
40. For an excellent analysis of CPAI, see Feise and Lovrich 2003.
