Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
a conference when a company scientist (a former UC researcher) presented
a very positive spin on the data before an audience at the Lettuce Board's
annual research meeting. In another instance, he was in the audience
when the company scientist discussed the DM system at a national plant
pathology conference, claiming that the system had already increased the
productivity of lettuce growers in the Salinas Valley. Although the plant
pathology advisor was tempted to “make a scene” and challenge the
scientist's presentation, he maintained his diplomatic stance. In an inter-
view he expressed irritation toward this appropriation of his data yet still
tempered his anger, saying, “It's annoying—that's the best thing to say
about it.”
When I last spoke to the plant pathology advisor about the DM system,
in the spring of 1999, he was no longer involved with the DM project at
all, and the company was actively marketing the weather station service
to lettuce growers. The advisor had resigned himself to their promotion
of the system, claiming that he understood the self-interest behind their
positon. Ironically, this extension advisor was more concerned about the
infl ated claims being made to researchers at a national conference than
about the kind of marketing being directed toward growers. He believed
that, unlike the researchers, the growers had the local knowledge to decide
for themselves whether the DM system was effective.
PlantPath:
If a few years from now a lot of people are using it, then we
will know it works. If no one is using it, then we'll know it doesn't. We
have the best lettuce growers in the world here. [AgCo] isn't going to fool
them.
The advisor's relations with the Lettuce Board, however, were a little
more tricky. He told me that members of the board had been pressuring
him to be more supportive of the system, especially because its successful
implementation would be a useful showpiece, allowing the industry to
show regulatory agencies that vegetable growers had been proactive in
their attempts to better manage pesticide use. Again, he emphasized the
care he had taken in positioning himself: he still diplomatically explained
to growers that the system “needs more work” and had not given into the
Lettuce Board's pressure for a cheerful endorsement. In the end, he was
able to distance himself from the DM project, although he could not afford
the kind of stubborn attitude that the Davis researcher had shown in dis-
