Former Marketing Order Chief Still Involved In Industry

Every December, in preparation for the first issue of the year, we take a look at the names on our Editorial Advisory Board. We haven’t made any changes in a couple of years because each of these individuals provides us with some great insight into the crops and/or regions of the country in which they work. This year, though, it looked as though we had a tough call to make.

Gary Van Sickle has been with the California Tree Fruit Agreement (CTFA), which administered the marketing orders on peaches, plums, and nectarines grown in the Golden State, for 36 years. Such marketing orders have come under fire in the past decade — the huge Washington Apple Commission’s domestic promotion activities were shut down after a grower vote in 2003 — as larger growers have decided they want to do their own marketing.

Just over a year ago, California peach and nectarine growers voted to cease their orders. Here again it was the larger growers who carried the day, as Van Sickle said that while a majority of growers came down in favor, the growers representing a majority of the acreage voted against them, and an order must pass both tests to be retained. The writing was on the wall. Finally in September, the plum growers followed suit, and that was that for the CTFA.

I have to confess our original inclination was to remove Van Sickle from the advisory board, but then my colleagues and I got to thinking that we had originally contacted Van Sickle because he was known as a “walking encyclopedia” of the California stone fruit industry. Just because the CTFA was gone didn’t mean he’d forgotten everything. So we left the choice up to him, and fortunately for us, he chose to remain on board.

 

Research Is Critical

Reached last month, Van Sickle declined comment on the CTFA’s demise. A class act and a good soldier, he said that his grower boards had ordered him to wind down operations, and that’s exactly what he was doing. While he can’t, or more accurately, chose not to comment, I can, and I think it’s a shame. While I certainly understand why larger growers would vote against it — you only have so many dollars for marketing and you want to spend them as you see fit — marketing orders are good for their respective industries as a whole. If nothing else, who’s going to pay for the research that benefits all growers?

Especially today, with the University of California Cooperative Extension’s dwindling budget, research is at a premium. I called Michael Reimer, vice president of marketing at Brandt Farms in Reedley and former chairman of the CTFA’s research commission, and he said the need for research was indeed the reason many of the growers voted for the CTFA.

But Reimer said he thinks the “throw the bums out” mentality that ruled the November 2010 Congressional elections carried over to the CTFA vote. Like many people, growers were mad as heck at the status quo, and they weren’t going to take it any more. As for research, Reimer said growers will have to look to voluntary groups like the California Grape & Tree Fruit League — whose president, Barry Bedwell, is also fortunately on our board.

In the short term, what growers will miss most are the crop estimates Van Sickle provided, which Reimer said were uncannily accurate. Well, Gary is a walking encyclopedia, and we, for one, are glad to have him.