Pig raising practices in Smithfield

An analysis of the meat producing industry in the EU and its legislation

European Law and Politics
Popa Stefania -1247158
Camille Thual- 1238485
1247158popa@zuyd.nl
1238485thual@zuyd.nl
Professor: Erline Lamberiks
International Business and Communication, Zuyd University

18th of January, 2013

6012 words

Table of Contents

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.

Smithfield- Background information.4

Food-safety legislation concerns..7
Environmental issues11
European subsidies and the monopoly position of Smithfield..14
Conclusion.18

Motivation

One of the basic notions we have been taught during our European Law and Politics
course is that the foundation of the European Union is the division of responsibilities
between its three major institutions: The European Parliament, The European
Commission and The European Council. Very few information we have been given about
the most important part of the European Union: its citizens and how they can enforce the
quality of EU legislation. Hence, as citizens, we wanted to write about something that
affects directly our lives (the source of the food we buy in supermarkets) and that we
could also, directly influence (by public campaign, the same as the author of the
documentary, Tracy Worcester, did). After watching the Pig Business documentary, we
became aware of the complexity of the food-safety issue and we wanted to explore
further in order to see if we will reach the same conclusions as the author did. Throughout
this essay we want to investigate whether, after the screening of the Pig Business
documentary- our main source of information- the appropriate measures were taken by
the legislative bodies in charge or whether only people play an active role in the decisionmaking process. In other words: who is in charge of the meat market, and ultimately for
its legislation: big corporations or the consumers? The topic we chose, the pork meat
producing industry, attacks many issues that should concern EUs future: the monopoly
of big companies in the meat producing industry that eliminate the small farmers from the
market, the quality and food safety problems that the industrialization of farming brings
and also the ethics of such a business and the adoption of new laws concerning it. We
want to see for ourselves if Smithfield is a legal multinational and for that, we will look at
every piece of legislation and compare it to the actual situation of the Smithfield
business.
The steps we want to follow in solving this intricate equation in which are implicated
high authorities, small farm owners but also the European consumers correspond to
individual chapters dedicated to separate issues covering our subject.

I.

Smithfield- Background information

The biggest pork meat producer in US and Europe, Smithfield, got his the name from a
small town in Virginia, where the whole business started. In 1936 a family by the name of
Luther decided to trade pork assumption of good quality meat at reduced prices. The city
will become quickly the capital of ham.
By the end of 1998, Smithfield Foods was the number one pork producer in the United
States and internationally growing, with plants in 26 U.S. states and in nine other
countries in the world. The company Smithfield Foods raises 14 million pigs per year and
processes the meat from 27 million pigs. In 2006, the company produced 5.9 billion
pounds of pork and 1.4 billion pounds of beef. Smithfield claims it developed industryleading sustainability year programs focused on the environment, animal care,
employees, food safety, communities and value creation, as their mission statement below
describes it:
"Today, Smithfield Foods is the world's largest pork processor and hog producer, and is
known for its focus on producing food that we are proud to serve to our friends and
family. We look forward to continuing to feed millions of people each Stock year with
pork that is both delicious and affordable. 1
Among the core values of the company we mention: the production of safe, high-quality
and nutritious food, creating value for our stakeholders, be an employer of choice, lead
in animal care, protect and reinvigorate the environment and making a positive impacts
on the concerned communities.
That is the version of Smithfield about their business. They define themselves as a family
business, proud to serve meat on its quality. But the media have different view of that
company.
Smithfield wants to be considered as a family business full of good intentions and values
above reproach. After making the rounds of newspaper articles mentioning the company

1 smithfield.com

we quickly realized that the company has triggered a number of scandals and plagued
with issues of justice.
Behind this image of family business concern for the environment we found behind the
sets, a company careless about ecological issue and with no pity for the animals.
Abused animals, confined in cages too small for them, droppings untreated health
problem or stink. Smithfield is actually a lobby that has nothing to do with the rules.
Pigs are often forced to live in huge warehouses; they are treated badly and live on each
other in their feces. They live in a cruel confinement. In addition to these horrible way of
living, the manure drain of the animals are not treated, and large-scale agriculture if it is
not properly monitored disorder causes great ecological testify as the charges historic
below shows:
1. Smithfield Company has been criticized for the millions of gallons of manure it
produces and stores, without processing. Thus, over a period of four years in North
Carolina, 4.7 million liters of pig slurry were found in the rivers of the state. Workers
and residents in the vicinity of the factories of the company Smithfield Foods
reported health problems and complain of constant and unbearable smell from
droppings pork.

2. In 1997, Virginia, the company Smithfield Foods has been fined $ 12.6 million2 for
violation of the "Clean Water Act". The fine is the third largest civil penalty imposed
by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) under the Water Act. It amounted to
0.035 percent of annual sales of the company Smithfield Foods Inc. However,
Smithfield delayed installing essential pollution control equipment and continued
dumping waste into the river for five years requiring further actions of the local
authorities.
2 Washington D.C. official press release on FRIDAY, 8th of august, 1997 - SMITHFIELD
FOODS FINED $12.6 MILLION, LARGEST CLEAN WATER ACT FINE EVERhttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1997/August97/331enr.htm

3. In 1999, also in North Carolina, the hog industry has been investigated after
Hurricane Floyd flooded a large part of the eastern part of the state, including a
number of storage tanks of sewage. Many of the farms belonging to the company
Smithfield Foods were then accused of polluting the rivers of the state. Following
Hurricane Floyd, the company Smithfield Foods entered into negotiations in 2000
with Mike Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, for a settlement to fund the
development of a rational and environmental releases and waste hog farms in North
Carolina.

4. Also in 1999, Smithfield has established a factory farm in Poland, with the same
production methods (the concentration of pigs) and the same consequences (unable to
handle the overflow of feces) In 2003, Byszkowo a pit is discharged into the water
system of the city, causing multiple health problems.

Last but not least, the group of farms of La Gloria in Mexico is suspected to be the
origin of the swine flu outbreak that took place in 2009. According to the Mexican
press, the pig husbandry practices by the company Smithfield Foods helped cause the
spread of influenza porcine. Photographs of the factory farm of Smithfield Foods
Granjas Carroll, Mexico, show pig carcasses floating in the middle of excrement and
waste. The locals complained about the swarms of flies around places of storage of
manure. The Mexican health officials have said that this fly species is known to breed
in pig waste and that the outbreak of swine flu can be linked to these pork farms.
All these accidents should have stopped if the right laws would have been applied on
time or better, if Smithfield would have learned from its mistakes and handled their
business as professional as they claim in their mission and value statement. However
in the documentary of Tracy Worcester, filmed between 2004 and 2008, it is clearly
demonstrated that the conditions of breeding and feeding pigs have not changed much
in the past ten years.

II Food-safety legislation concerns

The good thing about giant business such as Smithfield is that, by expanding, they also
help the legislation expand. The accidents that occurred in Smithfield farms created the
opportunity for a improved legislative-framework to be created, first in the USA, where
the business started and in the last fourteen years, in the EU and China as well.
Smithfield wants to portray their company as animal friendly. But what the
documentary of Tracy Worcester- Pig Business revealed in 2009 that this is far from the
truth. This is why many people went to investigate in Smithfield farm to know their
method of work, even after the screening of documentary, where is perfectly captured the
way the animals are mistreated and how they spend all their life in confined cages, too
small for them.
For a month at the end of 2010, an HSUS, an investigator worked inside a Smithfield /
Murphy-Brown breeding facility in Waverly, Virginia, where more than 1.000 sows in
gestation live in small, metal crates barely larger than the animals, which virtually
immobilize their bodies for every moment of the day.
This investigator has witnessed horror on animals. The biggest problem is the gestation
crates. All the pigs are stuck in small cages so they cant move and because of that they
are victim of serious injuries and diseases that are not treated or treated in barbarous
manner. They live in extreme confinement and are stacked on top of each other.
This animal torture, in addition to being inhumane, produces a bad quality meat and
sometimes infected meat. The investigator has even witnessed sick pigs thrown alive into
bins. Thus seven American states and the European Union pledged to prohibit the
gestation crates. Smithfield is committed to eliminate gestation crates until 2017.
In addition, many large companies have adopted policies to reduce or eliminate their
consumption of pork from suppliers that use gestation crates, including Burger King,
Wendy, Quiznos, Sonic, Harris Teeter, Safeway, Winn-Dixie, Carl Jr. and Hardee.

To avoid this type of abuse, the European Union has implemented a large number of laws
on food safety and animal safety. The result will be an EU animal health policy that is
robust, efficient and effective. The activities of the European Commission in this area are
based on the recognition that animals are sensitive beings. The overall objective of the
legislation is to ensure that the animals are spared of any unnecessary pain and suffering
and compel the owners or keepers of animals to respect minimum requirements of wellbeing.
The integrated approach to food security adopted by the EU aims to ensure a high level of
food safety, health and welfare of animals and plant health within the European Union
through measures coherent farm to the table and adequate monitoring, while ensuring the
effective functioning of the internal market.
This approach involves the implementation of legislation and other measures to ensure
effective control systems and evaluate compliance with EU standards.
The most important laws in the fight against animal abuse but also about the quality of
the meat are laws dealing with traceability of meat. In fact if you just know where the
meat is produce, its easier to control the quality of the meat and of animals life.
The objectives of the Community rules on the identification of animals are the
localization and tracing of animals for veterinary purposes, which is of crucial
importance for the control of infectious diseases and for the traceability of animal
products.
After incidents such as the ones described in the first chapter, there were numerous
reactions from the legislative bodies in US but also in Europe where various policies
were elaborated.
One of them was established by the European Parliament: The Community Animal
Health Policy (CAHP) which covers the health of all animals in the EU kept for food,
farming, sport, companionship, entertainment and in zoos. It also covers wild animals and
animals used in research where there is a risk of them transmitting disease to other
animals or to humans.
8

Another document is The White Book which aims to ensure the highest level of food
safety in the EU motivated by the need to ensure a high level of food safety. This is
reflected by the establishment of independent European Food Authority. The White Book
sets out over 80 separate actions planned for the next few years. Of course, being a
white paper, it doesnt have direct effect and is not binding on Member State since is
just secondary legislation.
This authority would be given a number of key tasks embracing the independent
scientific advice on all aspects of food security, management of early warning systems,
communication and dialogue with consumers about food safety issues and health as well
as networking with national agencies and scientific bodies.3
Looking at all these international agreements and open papers, we could state that the
legal-framework for the regulation of this business is complete. However, when it comes
to applying those principles, we see that not even the leading companies are capable of
respecting the standards, although they were long ago put on paper.
The first documents to regulate the farming conditions throughout EU date back to 1991,
when the first directive was elaborated: The Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19
November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. This
first piece of legislation stated that: The accommodation for pigs must be constructed in
such a way as to allow each pig to: lie down, rest and stand up without difficulty; have a
clean place in which it can rest; see other pigs.4 . However, as shown in the image
below(see Annex 1), captured from the documentary, in Smithfield factory farms these
3 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub06_en.pdf)

4 Official Journal L 340 , 11/12/1991 P. 0033 0038,Council Directive 91/630/EEC

of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards fo the protection of
pigs, Annex CHAPTER I GENERAL CONDITIONS, paragraph 8:
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CELEX:31991L0630:EN:HTML

rules were not applied yet in 2004-2008. It is well-known that, according to the principle
of sovereignty of the EU law over national law, a directive can have direct effect
provided that is sufficiently clear and precise and unconditional ( Van Duyn case) and
that the implementation deadline has past ( Ratti case). We could say that both conditions
were satisfied, hence we can raise claims over Smithfield not respecting the EU law by
not adapting their farms to the standards specified in the legislation.
This directive was also the first one to lay off the first technical details regarding the
space each animal should be provided with in a farm (i.e.: 0,20 m$ for a pig of an
average weight of between 10 kg and 20 kg )5. The law was supposed to be applied
starting 1st of January 1994 when all holdings newly-built or rebuilt and/or brought
into use for the first time after that date shall comply with() the requirements 6.
However, when asked why their farms dont meet the European requirements, Smithfield
defended stating that it is not their fault that the old farms belonging to the collective
farming system of the ex-communist countries (Romania) are not in according with the
new provisions.
The act was improved in 2008, when the COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/120/EC of 18
December 2008 was published. Just as the earlier versions, this directive requested the
same criteria as before to be respected by the farms: The provisions laid down in
paragraphs 1(b), 2, 4, 5 and the last sentence of paragraph 8 shall apply to all holdings
newly built or rebuilt or brought into use for the first time after 1 January 2003. From 1
5
Official Journal L 340 , 11/12/1991 P. 0033 0038,Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19
November 1991 laying down minimum standards fo the protection of pigs,
Article3 http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CELEX:31991L0630:EN:HTML

6
Official Journal L 340 , 11/12/1991 P. 0033 0038,Council Directive 91/630/EEC
of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards fo the protection of
pigs, Article3 http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CELEX:31991L0630:EN:HTML
10

January 2013 those provisions shall apply to all holdings.7 Another measure mentioned
in this directive is the Partial ban on boxes for gestation sows which applies to all
European farms starting January 1st, 20138. This law will improve the living conditions
of 13 million sows, which previously spent about 300 days a year locked in metal stalls.
Completely confined, sows were subject to numerous injuries and frustrations, and could
not even move. Although these rules were supposed to be active starting this year, in
January 2007, Smithfield announced that they are in the beginning stages of phasing out
individual gestation stalls in their sow farms and replacing the gestation stalls with group
pens: We anticipate this will occur over the next 12 to 13 years. We currently estimate
the total cost of our transition to group pens to be approximately $300 million. We
believe this decision represents a significant financial commitment and was made as a
result of the desire to be more animal friendly, as well as to address certain concerns and
needs of our customers. 9 This particular example stands to prove that Smithfield, the
leading producer of pork meat on the pork industry market, didnt manage to comply to
the rules of EU in the last ten years, managing somehow to delay the deadline for
providing a proper environment to the pigs. By contrary, in the last ten years, Smithfield
continued to expand their factory farms, which resulted in another accident in 2007,
Romania, where there was not enough space for new born piglets, as the architect of
7
Official Journal L 340 , 11/12/1991 P. 0033 0038,COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/120/EC of
18 December 2008, article 3: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2009:047:0005:0013:EN:PDF

8
Compassion in World Farming site, article Happy New year, sows?, 2nd of January,2013
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/pig_farming/happy_new_year_sows.aspx

9
QUARTERLY REPORT of SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC, US Securities and Exchange
Commision WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549, pag 29, 27th of July, 2008
http://apps.shareholder.com/sec/viewerContent.aspx?
companyid=SFD&docid=6140894
11

Smithfield farms, Mr. Seculici admitted publicly: Thousands of piglets were born()
There was no place to put them because the new farms werent finished. Nobody admits
this, but this was the cause of swine flu. They were forced to improvise.10 All the
situations above come to prove that intensifying farming it is not a sustainable solution,
simply because trying to breed pigs in a artificial environment, that doesnt even meet the
minimal requirements stated by the law, deprives a domestic animal from anything that
makes the life worth living.

III. Environmental issues

The biggest challenge for pig farms that use big concentration of animals in small areas is
by far the disposal of waste. The EU authorities elaborated the Council
Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, in order to ensure that
the introduction of intensive agriculture methods wont raise the level of nitrates in the
water.
In 1991, EU published The COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 12 December 1991 concerning the
protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
(91/676/EEC) in which is regulated the capacity of storage vessels for livestock
manure: this capacity must exceed that required for storage throughout the longest
period during which land application in the vulnerable zone is prohibited, except where
it can be demonstrated to the competent authority that any quantity of manure in excess
of the actual storage capacity will be disposed of in a manner which will not cause harm
to the environment;11
Although this Directive stipulates that the waste is supposed to be eliminated in a nonpolluting way, Smithfield still used to spray the untreated waste on the fields as fertilizer,
10
The New York Times A U.S. Hog Giant Transforms Eastern Europe, pag 4, May 5th 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/global/06smithfield.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=1&

12

or even dispose them in waters nearby the factory farms they opened in Poland: A report
of the Compassion in World Farming organization, after a visit to Boszkowo in 2003
shows giant open-air cesspits, filled with animal waste, that local people blame for
contamination and pollution. 'Everywhere is the detritus of industrial factory farming plastic syringe casings, intravenous needles and white clinical gloves - floating in the
rancid cesspit and discarded on adjacent farmland12
Another series of accidents took place in Romania. Smithfield arrived here in 2004, when
the country was not yet a member of the EU and although the meat produced here had to
comply to the European standards, this is not the case for some of the total of 50 farms
that the company opened in Banat, the west region of the country. A report of the Chief
Commissioner of the Environment Guard in the Timis county, states that the company
Smithfield pollute the soil with manure, in the village Gataia, Timis county, because their
pools for collecting manure had cracks that caused spills in the soil: "We did a routine
check and found that the soil is affected by infiltration droppings. Now we have to check
all farms, because this may not be an isolated case set, "said the inspector. 13According to
him, the American company illegally placed a deposit of manure which did not have
approval from the Environmental Guard.

11
Official Journal L 375 , 31/12/1991 P. 0001 0008, The COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 12 December
1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources (91/676/EEC), Annex 3, paragraph 2 : http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0676:EN:HTML

12
Antony Barnett and Urmee KhanThe Observer, Sunday 2 April 2006, Shocking' farms raise
pigs for UK, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/02/animalwelfare.foodanddrink

13
The Pig factory farms pollute the air, 9th of June 2008,
http://www.ecomagazin.ro/crescatoriile-de-porci-%E2%80%9Esmithfield%E2%80%9C-stricaaerul/

13

Smithfield is breeding pigs at industrial scale in Timis and carries the stigma of swine
fever outbreak that erupted in 2007 in three of his farms. When 53,000 pigs were
slaughtered to prevent the spreading of the disease, the Americans have asked the
Romanian state for EUR 11.5 million in compensation for losses caused by the swine flu.
This demand is granted by the paragraph 2 of Article 107 in the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (TFEU) that provides help in case of natural disasters: Aid to
make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional
occurrences.14Fortunately, the local authorities, those in charge of distributing the
money, refused their demand, outraged that the epidemic occurred in unlicensed farms
which they accused of lax bio security measures, hence there was no natural disaster.
Blocked from collecting the money, Smithfield turned to the head of the Romanian
Parliaments agricultural committee in order to gain support for pushing an amendment
that would allow animal owners to be compensated for disease-caused losses regardless
of the fact they ignored proper bio security measures.
Also in February, the company was fined by the Environmental Guard of Arad county
with a 25,000 euro fine, after manure from pig farm in the town of Arad surfaced on a
national road. The reply of the general manager of Smithfield Romania to all these
accusations was: "Our tanks for collecting manure are sealed and respect the European
norms regarding the animal welfare. We can not be accused of polluting the environment
if our collaborators do not respect the rules for collecting manure. The measures that we
took after we lost so many animals because of the pig swine are drastic. 15

14
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Section 2, Article 107, paragraph
2, page 32, 2011/2012 edition
15
The Pig factory farms pollute the air, 9th of June 2008,
http://www.ecomagazin.ro/crescatoriile-de-porci-%E2%80%9Esmithfield
%E2%80%9C-strica-aerul/
14

This is just one example of how the company understands to handle its business: grow as
much as possible by implementing in countries with a weak legislation, the same failing
system, which is now severely criticized in the US by prominent figures such as Tom
Garrett, American senator and representative of the Animal Welfare Institute. He was
among the first ones to observe that the industrial systems designed for the production of
vehicles and other machines now applies to living beings. He concluded that this is a
great cruelty and no civilized society should tolerate it.

IV.

European subsidies and the monopoly position of Smithfield

One of the things that Smithfield takes big pride in is the fact that is the worlds largest
producer of hogs (See Annex 2) and has the largest market share in the US. We wondered
whether this situation comes in opposition with the EUs internal market regulations.
According to Article 102, TFEU, the abuse of an undertaking of a dominant position
within the internal market is prohibited. As the share market currently owned by
Smithfield proves its dominant position, it is not so easy to determine whether the
company engaged in strategies that could threaten the competition. Hence we can not
determine whether it can be accused of breaching the competition laws of EU. However,
we can state that Smithfield substantially changed the internal market in the recent
countries where it opened new farms.
In 2003, in Romania there were 477,000 pig breeders, while in 2007 only 52,000 were
left. Smithfield entered the Romanian market in 2004. Basically, they came here because
Romania was not yet in the EU and was suited to a lack of rigorous laws, which made it
really easy for them to gain a significant strength on the market. Also, the government
supported this type of business, stating that we need foreign investors to help the
economy. Since the market was flooded with very cheap pork meat from multinationals
of Germany, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, Netherlands, the government thought, as the
Polish government also did initially, that it is better to have a big company here, so at
least it will create jobs and Romania will get to export, instead of being invaded by
imports. What happened in reality was that the investment has removed the local farmers.
On top of the meat import issue, Smithfield also brought the environmental problems in
15

the Romanian landscape. So we can say that the company did not exactly help the
development of Romanian economy. After 2007 and the EU integration, we would expect
for all these issues to be solved through the European law. However, after Romanias
integration in the EU, the company doesnt seem to be affected by the new restrictions,
but rather advantaged by the measures provided in the TFEU, being considered qualified
for financial aid.
The articles that state the criteria for which a Member State will be provided with a
financial aid are to be found in Articles 107, paragraph 3 (c): Aid to facilitate the
development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas..16 and Article
108 of the TFEU. The main reason for which Smithfield was granted such a support was
that it will promote the economic development of areas where () there is serious
underemployment.17 We can only ask ourselves how did Smithfield helped solving the
underemployment issue since the number of pig farmers has been reduced dramatically
by the fierce competition of the multinational. Although that would seem typical for a
capitalist corporation, it is not only Smithfield that unleveled the playfield in the internal
meat-market, but also the subsidies granted through the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) of EU.
CAP has its roots in the 1950s western Europe, whose countries have been affected by
years of war while the agriculture was weak and food supply could not be guaranteed.
The initial focus was on encouraging better productivity in the food chain so that
consumers benefit from a steady supply of food that they can also afford, but also to
ensure that the EU will have a viable agricultural sector. The treaty of Rome established
its basic principle and objectives, which have not been amended since 1958. Among these

16
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Section 2, Article 107, paragraph
3(c), page 32, 2011/2012 edition
17
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Section 2, Article 107, paragraph
3(a), page 32, 2011/2012 edition
16

principle, there was also these the one of increasing productivity, secure availability of
supplies and provide consumers with food at reasonable prices. 18
Only by looking at this particular aspect, we could tell how even from the beginning, the
focus on productivity, standardization and competition has been a policy in the advantage
of big companies such as Smithfield. CAP began offering subsidies and guaranteed prices
for farmers, providing them with incentives to produce. Financial assistance was
provided for the restructuring of agriculture with the intention to ensure the development
and management of farms in size and to accelerate the development of technological
skills so as to be adapted to the logistic socio-economic climate of the time.
Since the 1980, the EU had to deal with almost permanent surpluses for most products,
some of which are exported in third countries (via subsidies), others have to store them or
dispose of them in the EU. These measures had a high budgetary cost, distorted some
markets worldwide (i.e.:The Ivorian farmers cannot compete. Fresh local pork sells
reaches costs of $2.50 a kilo, while Europes frozen offal is a bargain for only $1.40 a
kilo.19) and did not have always served the best interests of farmers, thus becoming
unpopular among consumers and taxpayers.
A new initiative of the EU Transparency, a non-profit organization based in UK and
Denmark that aims at informing EU citizens with valuable data about payments and
beneficiary of the subsidies, revealed that the total financial aid given to farmers and
others under the European Unions CAP reach about 55 billion a year, more than 40%
of European Unions entire annual budget, or around 100 a year for each EU citizen.20

18
European Crop Protection, What is Common Agricultural Policy?
http://www.ecpa.eu/information-page/agriculture-today/common-agricultural-policy-cap

19
The New York Times A U.S. Hog Giant Transforms Eastern Europe, pag 4, May 5th 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/global/06smithfield.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=1&

20
Farm subsidy- http://farmsubsidy.org/about/

17

That means that a customer pays the price for the products he buys twice: once, when he
makes the purchase in the shop and after, when he pays his taxes to the state. Hence,
buying cheap Smithfield products does not prove to save money on the long term.
In order to confirm this fact, we analyzed the amount of subsidies granted by the
European Union to the farming sector in Romania. According to farmsubsidy.org, in 2008
Romania received 1,042 in EU farm subsidies or approximately 245 per farm. On the
same site, SC SMITHFIELD FERME SRL, the Romanian subsidiary of Smithfield, has
registered a total of 625,776.81 financial aid received through the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and other direct payments under European
Agricultural Guarantee Fund. Compared to the average of 300-400 that a small farmer
in Romanian is qualified to receive under the same institutions, Smithfield seems to carry
a major advantage when it comes to competition rules. However these data are not
complete since Smithfield refuses to publish the exact amount of subsidy that they are
entitled to receive under the CAP legislation. According to the New York Times article21,
the company collected almost 300,000 in cropland subsidies in 2008 and more than
200,000 in special funding for new European Union states such as Romania. In Poland,
Smithfield received more than 2 million for its subsidiary Agri Plus. In total, in 2008
and 2009, the company received a hefty amount of 634, 870.21subsidies only from two
of the states they operate in: UK and Romania. By looking at the given numbers, we can
conclude that the wealthier an undertaking is, the bigger its share of subsidy is. Although
there are conditions to meet environmental standards, by simply owning a piece of land,
most of the companies receive the financial help they ask for. Given the fact that
Smithfield, as shown in the previous chapter, does not comply to all the environmental
restrictions but violated them several times in the past, we can conclude that the
requirements under which subsidies are granted should be further improved, since the
current situation stands to prove that the poorer a population, the smaller its influence on
the policies is and that big multinationals gain greater power by accessing subsidies from
the Member States they operate in, instead of giving space for local producers and small
21
The New York Times A U.S. Hog Giant Transforms Eastern Europe, pag 4, May 5th
2009
18

undertakings to expand, which is now one of the top priority for the CAP legislators. The
bottom line is that public support measures for agriculture must be bound to social
contributions such as protecting the environment and natural landscapes and maintaining
biodiversity. We can only question the future of the market diversity, when Smithfield
will get to conquer even more of the meat industry and the three main pork breeds they
promote will be the only option for the customers. The diversity and variety of the food
market can only be achieved by sustainable farming methods. Many civil society groups,
and partly the European Commission as well, demanded such improvements during the
discussions around the last CAP reform and its implementation. These voices could not
however make themselves adequately heard above the voices of those interest groups
intent upon securing the status quo.
All the issues described above must be addressed in the future CAP reform in 2013, when
CAP has to modify the unchanged pillars established in the 1960s, from a productivityoriented aid scheme to one that focuses on protecting the environment and sustains the
micro-farms that are in the present day endangered by the presence of Smithfield-like
multinationals. The previous reforms of 1992 and 2002 were only able to adjust these
problems in a limited manner. This failure was partly due to the fact that the objectives of
the CAP were not replaced, new objectives regarding environment and rural support were
only added. Thus, the objectives of CAP became self-contradictory. The beneficiary of
these measures were again, the big companies that asked for further help to implement
the new standards. We can say that when it comes to unfair competition it is not only the
companies to be blamed but also the CAP aid-system that encourages that is build in such
a manner that, the more standards they apply the harder is for small farmers to reach
them, while the big companies are clearly advantaged since investing money is never an
issue for them.
V.

Conclusion

Our intricate exploration of the pig-raising business and its issues brought to light many
facts that we were more or less aware of, when we started researching for our topic.

19

First of all we understood that a meat-producing factory is not something that should
concern farmers only, but all of us since the consequences of bad practices in this domain
are far more serious than we imagined.
Probably the most affected by industrial farming system such as the one promoted by
Smithfield is the environment. In the chapter dedicated to pollution caused by disposing
of the waste produced daily in large-scale farms, we found numerous breaches of specific
legislation provided by the EU.
Another aspect was the one concerning the agricultural subsidies accorded to Smithfield
that turned the undertaking in a fast-expanding giant in Romania and Poland, where the
traditional farm system is threatened by the fierce competition provided by the cheap
prices of Smithfield products.
Las but not least, the most important aspect would be the animal welfare issues raised by
the industrial scale farming that brings pain and converts the life of the animals into a
dreadful experience.
This particular negative side of the pig business has received the most exposure from
media and animal welfare NGOs across Europe that put pressure on states governments
for enforcing the most recent directive: COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/120/EC of 18
December 2008 that puts a complete ban on the use of metal stall for keeping the pigs.
Since the deadline for implementation is 2013, the official data indicated that, sadly, up to
14 nations would not comply on time with this directive22. The countries that may be in
breach of the ban are Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the Netherlands. And the general
public unawareness makes the situation even more worrying: from surveys undertaken
recently, 67% of the French consumers think that French origin of pork products
guarantees that the minimum legal requirements for the protection of pigs welfare are
respected. With similar results, a survey conducted in Italy indicates that 62% of the
22
Happy New Year, sows article, Compassion In the World of Farming site,
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/pig_farming/happy_new_year_sows.aspx
20

participants think Italian pig products would be of a higher welfare standard than other
countries. In reality, the country with the highest animal welfare standards is the UK.
Because of the differences between legislations, UK is not immune to the delays in
implementing the directive evenly across the EUs states in order to ensure a level
playing field throughout the European internal market. According to the data provided by
the Compassion in the World of Farming NGO, almost 60% of British pig meat is
imported, which means that the UK farmers and ultimately consumers are victims of an
unfair legal system, with the UK having adopted the complete ban of metal stalls in 1999
while the rest of Europe is still pending in doing so.
All of the above come to prove that, although EUs laws and aid policies are strong and
specific enough, they are not enough to right a distorted reality in which the pursue of
pure economic goals led to building farms that no longer comply to the minimal welfare
requirements. In other words, we cannot expect the European Union to elaborate further
legislation until we dont stop encouraging this type of practices ourselves, by buying
pork meat without carrying about its source and ignoring the issues that farmers who try
to raise pigs in the old-fashioned have to deal with.
To conclude I can say that rather than blaming corporations and incorrectly applied
agricultural reforms for the decaying of our farming system, we should question if it is
not the mere consumer to be blamed for the lack of ethics in the pig raising industry.
And when it comes to ethics we are more than sure to affirm that no law could restrain
our morality and consume behavior and that is only a matter of choice whether to
perpetuate such business or sabotage it.

21

Bibliography

Legal documents:
1. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Lisbon 2007
2. Official Journal L 340 , 11/12/1991 P. 0033 0038,Council Directive
91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards fo
the protection of pigs, Annex CHAPTER I GENERAL CONDITIONS,
paragraph 8: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CELEX:31991L0630:EN:HTML
3. Official Journal L 340 , 11/12/1991 P. 0033 0038,COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008, article 3: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2009:047:0005:0013:EN:PDF
4. Official Journal L 375 , 31/12/1991 P. 0001 0008, The COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of
12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC), Annex 3,
paragraph 2 : http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CELEX:31991L0676:EN:HTML

On-line articles:

22

1. Compassion in World Farming site, article Happy New year, sows?, 2nd of
January,2013
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/pig_farming/happy_new_year_sows.aspx
2. Washington D.C. official press release on FRIDAY, 8 th of august, 1997 SMITHFIELD FOODS FINED $12.6 MILLION, LARGEST CLEAN WATER ACT FINE
EVER http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1997/August97/331enr.htm
3. QUARTERLY REPORT of SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC, US Securities and
Exchange Commision WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549, pag 29, 27th of July, 2008
http://apps.shareholder.com/sec/viewerContent.aspx?
companyid=SFD&docid=6140894
4. The New York Times A U.S. Hog Giant Transforms Eastern Europe, pag 4,
May 5th 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/global/06smithfield.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=1&
5. Antony Barnett and Urmee KhanThe Observer, Sunday 2 April 2006,
Shocking' farms raise pigs for UK,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/02/animalwelfare.foodanddrink
6.

The Pig factory farms pollute the air, 9 th of June 2008,

http://www.ecomagazin.ro/crescatoriile-de-porci-%E2%80%9Esmithfield
%E2%80%9C-strica-aerul/
7. European Crop Protection, What is Common Agricultural Policy?

http://www.ecpa.eu/information-

page/agriculture-today/common-

agricultural-policy-cap
8. Farm subsidy- http://farmsubsidy.org/about/

Audio-video resource:
1. Pig Business documentary, Tracy Worcester, 2009http://www.pigbusiness.co.uk/

23

Annexes
1. Annex 1: Snapshot in one of Smithfields farm from the Pig business
documentary, 2009

2. Annex 2: Smithfields evolution graphic

24

25