Rotten tomatoes

Diffusion is the process in which new ideas are communicated over time to generate a mutual understanding – adoption or rejection – among target audiences. While the adoption of every innovation is generally expected to beneficial, this isn’t always the case. The impact of adoption – good, bad or indifferent – is often predetermined by decisions made during the R&D phase. An example of this is the 1962 introduction of the mechanized tomato harvester in California.

California is one of the largest producers of tomatoes in the US. In 1962, around 4,000 farmers grew tomatoes in the state. Between them, they employed 50,000 tomato pickers, mostly immigrant Mexican men. However, by 1971 – 9 years after the introduction of the mechanized harvester – just 600 growers remained in business, while the pickers had been replaced by 1,000+ machines plus 18,000 workers (80% women) who rode the harvesters to sort the crops.

Use of the new machinery saw tomato farming in California relocate to counties where soil and weather conditions were better suited to mechanized picking. Furthermore, the shift required breeding harder tomatoes that could withstand mechanical harvesting – i.e they wouldn’t bruise – even though consumers preferred soft tomatoes.

Development of the mechanised harvester was driven by the imminent end of the Mexican Bracero Program – a program that allowed Mexican men to work in the US on short-term labour contracts to fill agricultural shortages. However, the rush to get the prototype machine into production and implemented ahead of the Bracero Program’s termination had significant social and economic consequences, not least for the 32,000 workers who were displaced.

‍

“The impact of adoption – good, bad or indifferent – is often predetermined by decisions made during the R&D phase."

‍

The case of the mechanised tomato harvester illustrates how early decisions in the R&D phase can predetermine the diffusion and consequences of an innovation. The new machine cost a hefty $65,000 – a price tag that put it out of the reach of smaller producers. Had the developers designed a smaller, more affordable machine, the transition may have benefited a larger number of farmers.

Similarly, if agricultural scientists had conducted socio-economic impact studies prior to developing the technology, some of the negative outcomes of farm mechanisation may have been mitigated. Instead, the creators of the harvester – honoured by the tomato industry for ‘saving the tomato for California’ – were later labelled ‘social sleepwalkers’ for failing to anticipate the social consequences of their invention.

A parallel can be drawn with the later introduction of precision farming in the US, which used expensive GPS and computer systems to optimise farming efficiency. Like the tomato harvester, early precision farming technology was costly, ranging from $50,000 to $75,000, making it accessible only to large commercial farmers. This raises questions about the inclusivity of such innovations and their broader social impacts.

The development and diffusion of agricultural innovations like the mechanised tomato harvester, highlight the importance of considering social and economic consequences during the R&D phase. Ensuring that innovations are designed to benefit a wider range of users can help prevent negative impacts on the wider economy and community.