Pig raising practices in SmithfieldAn analysis of the meat producing industry in the EU and its legislationEuropean Law and PoliticsPopa Stefania -1247158Camille Thual- 12384851247158popa@zuyd.nl1238485thual@zuyd.nlProfessor: Erline LamberiksInternational Business and Communication, Zuyd University

18th of January, 2013

6012 words

Table of Contents

I. Smithfield- Background information.4II. Food-safety legislation concerns..7III. Environmental issues11IV. European subsidies and the monopoly position of Smithfield..14V. Conclusion.18

MotivationOne 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 decision-making 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 informationThe 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 industry-leading 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. [footnoteRef:2] [2: smithfield.com]

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 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 million[footnoteRef:3] 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. [3: Washington D.C. official press release on FRIDAY, 8th 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. 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 concernsThe 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 well-being.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.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.[footnoteRef:4] [4: Source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub06_en.pdf) ]

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.[footnoteRef:5] . However, as shown in the image below(see Annex 1), captured from the documentary, in Smithfield factory farms these 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. [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, Annex CHAPTER I GENERAL CONDITIONS, paragraph 8: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0630:EN:HTML]

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 )[footnoteRef:6]. 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 [footnoteRef:7]. 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. [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] [7: 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]

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 January 2013 those provisions shall apply to all holdings.[footnoteRef:8] Another measure mentioned in this directive is the Partial ban on boxes for gestation sows which applies to all European farms starting January 1st, 2013[footnoteRef:9]. 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. [footnoteRef:10] 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 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.[footnoteRef:11] 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. [8: 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] [9: 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] [10: 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: 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&]

III. Environmental issuesThe 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 Directive91/676/EECof 12December1991 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;[footnoteRef:12] [12: 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]

Although this Directive stipulates that the waste is supposed to be eliminated in a non-polluting way, Smithfield still used to spray the untreated waste on the fields as fertilizer, 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 farmland[footnoteRef:13] [13: Antony BarnettandUrmee KhanThe Observer,Sunday 2 April 2006, Shocking' farms raise pigs for UK, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/02/animalwelfare.foodanddrink]

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. [footnoteRef:14]According to him, the American company illegally placed a deposit of manure which did not have approval from the Environmental Guard. [14: 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/]

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.[footnoteRef:15]Fortunately, 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. [15: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Section 2, Article 107, paragraph 2, page 32, 2011/2012 edition]

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. [footnoteRef:16] [16: 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/]

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 SmithfieldOne 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 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..[footnoteRef:17] 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.[footnoteRef:18] 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. [17: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Section 2, Article 107, paragraph 3(c), page 32, 2011/2012 edition] [18: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Section 2, Article 107, paragraph 3(a), page 32, 2011/2012 edition]

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 principle, there was also these the one of increasing productivity, secure availability of supplies and provide consumers with food at reasonable prices. [footnoteRef:19] [19: European Crop Protection, What is Common Agricultural Policy? http://www.ecpa.eu/information-page/agriculture-today/common-agricultural-policy-cap]

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.[footnoteRef:20]) and did not have always served the best interests of farmers, thus becoming unpopular among consumers and taxpayers. [20: 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&]

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.[footnoteRef:21] [21: Farm subsidy- http://farmsubsidy.org/about/]

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 received1,042in EU farm subsidies or approximately245 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 article[footnoteRef:22], 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 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. [22: The New York Times A U.S. Hog Giant Transforms Eastern Europe, pag 4, May 5th 2009]

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 productivity-oriented 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. ConclusionOur 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.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 directive[footnoteRef:23]. 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 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. [23: 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]

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.

Bibliography

Legal documents:1. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Lisbon 20072. 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:HTML3. 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:PDF4. 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:HTMLOn-line articles: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.aspx2. Washington D.C. official press release on FRIDAY, 8th of august, 1997 - SMITHFIELD FOODS FINED $12.6 MILLION, LARGEST CLEAN WATER ACT FINE EVER http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1997/August97/331enr.htm3. 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=61408944. 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 BarnettandUrmee KhanThe Observer,Sunday 2 April 2006, Shocking' farms raise pigs for UK, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/02/animalwelfare.foodanddrink6. 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/7. European Crop Protection, What is Common Agricultural Policy? http://www.ecpa.eu/information- page/agriculture-today/common-agricultural-policy-cap8. Farm subsidy- http://farmsubsidy.org/about/Audio-video resource:1. Pig Business documentary, Tracy Worcester, 2009- http://www.pigbusiness.co.uk/

Annexes1. Annex 1: Snapshot in one of Smithfields farm from the Pig business documentary, 2009

2. Annex 2: Smithfields evolution graphic

20