Paula DeenBy Peter Galuszka

Free trade capitalists may cheer the proposed $4.7 billion takeover of Virginia icon Smithfield Foods by a Chinese firm, but there is plenty to give pause and the blowback is creating some strange bedfellows.

The major issues are whether one should want Chinese-style management in charge of American corporations given their record on safety and market ethics.

Even arch-conservative Del. Bob Marshall is sounding alarm bells. He wrote in letter to Smithfield’s brass that: “China’s widespread food safety problems are known to American consumers and will engulf Smithfield Foods regardless of the names under which they are sold.”

Among Marshall’s points is that Shuanghui International Holdings Inc., which wants Smithfield, has a record of unsafe practices in its current food operations. He cites press accounts that the firm bought pigs 2011 that contained clenbuterol that was banned in 2002 and that ribs the firm sold last year had maggots and sausage had too much bacteria.

The takeover, which still needs approval from U.S. regulators, took a hit when a few days after its announcement, at least 119 people were killed in a poultry slaughterhouse in Northern China. The Chinese media says that many workers had been locked in the factory, which is a common workplace practice in that country.

In the past two years, some 70,000 Chinese have lost their lives in industrial accidents – a record that make any reasonable person think twice.

To be sure, U.S. firms have had their troubles including some in Virginia. In 2008 and 2009, a salmonella outbreak that killed nine and sickened 666 was traced to filthy operations at a Georgia plant owned by Lynchburg-based Peanut Corporation of America. And, according to the Journal, U.S. firms operating in China may tend to adopt to local practices. In 2011, dust explosions killed four and injured 59 at factories owned by suppliers for Apple Inc.

Shuanhui officials say they want to “learn” about safer practices from Smithfield. And, there could be a case that Western involvement may help the Chinese modernize. Coal mine deaths in 2012 dropped to 1,384, a decrease of nearly 30 percent. Last year, 19 American coal miners died. Of course, China mines nearly three times the amount of coal as China does and a number of U.S. deep mines were slowed or shuttered by market conditions. Not that long ago, however, China was losing up to 5,000 miners every year.

The problem with the Smithfield takeover – if the Chinese executives are to be believed – is that it puts the cart before the horse. If the Chinese own Smithfield their practices and cultural will prevail, no matter how bright a picture they want to paint.

That is something the free traders might want to think about before they follow a Paula Deen recipe calling for Smithfield brand sausage or bacon.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

8 responses to ““You Want Maggots With That, Hon?””

  1. Neil Haner Avatar
    Neil Haner

    You sure the esteemed Del Marshall is the one you want to be quoting here? Let me give you another quote from his letter to Smithfield:

    “You claimed in the papers that there are no national security concerns from the sale of Smithfield to Shuanghui. I disagree. Armies run on their stomachs.” (link here: http://watchdog.org/87932/va-lawmaker-warns-chinese-buyout-will-jeopardize-smithfield-brand/)

    This is the most paranoid accusation I’ve heard since the search for the President’s birth certificate. Marshall isn’t “arch-conservative” because of his free-market capitalist ideals, but because he’s a xenophobe, taking a page out of the Pete Hoekstra (remember Debbie Spend-it-now?) playbook.

    It isn’t as if the FDA is going to get shut out of Smithfield plants. The Federal Meat Inspection Act still applies, and will be enforced every bit as much as it was under previous ownership.

  2. Peter raises an issue that bears watching, but, frankly, I’m not losing much sleep over the prospect of slovenly Chinese hygienic practices creeping into Smithfield’s food processes. Quite the contrary, I think we’re more likely to see Smithfield’s best practices adopted in China.

    The Chinese people are acutely sensitive to the dangers of food poisoning in their food chain, with very good reason. As Holman Jenkins notes in a recent column one of the big problems in the Chinese food sector is the lack of branded products. When corporations have a brand to protect, they will go to great lengths, compared to no-name food providers, to ensure the quality of that brand. Likewise, consumers will gravitate to quality brands if they are reasonably assured that they won’t get food poisoning. He writes:

    One big unfinished business of the Chinese miracle is the long-delayed transition from peasant agriculture to modern, efficient agribusiness. The root cause of China’s 2008 baby-food crisis, in which six infants died and 300,000 suffered kidney damage, was rural peddlers selling unmarked bags of “protein enhancer” to small dairy producers, whom even China’s best brands have no choice but to patronize to keep their factories running.

    Shuanghui itself has suffered repeated embarrassments caused by tainted pork from its small suppliers, including a major snafu involving the illegal additive clenbuterol in 2010.

    Guess what? The entire world has a stake in this transition beyond just wishing the Chinese good eating and good health. Small-farmer duck and pig production in China is the incubator of virtually every global flu pandemic, the cause of tens of thousands of deaths annually.

    Smithfield’s appeal to Shuanghui is partly its hands-on control of quality at every stage of pork production.

    This merger is probably a good thing for all concerned.

  3. larryg Avatar

    I agree with Neil but I’m more skeptical than Bacon. The Chinese have demonstrated that they don’t see the value in “brands”.

    They not only have a history of cuttin corners but history of looking the other way until disaster strikes.

    I’m not at all convinced that the Chinese will adopt our practices not near as much as they might do something sneaky but dumb and ultimately destroy the Smithfield Brand. They clearly have no culture of “branding” and they do not appreciate it’s role in our culture. Think about Chinese “brands” in this country…. other Asian countries, Japan, Korea, etc understand the brand deal..the Chinese – do appreciate OUR brands but they have no culture of creating and preserving brands of their products.

    and to show.. no punches are being pulled here..

    I gave blood a month or so ago – and the intake survey wants to know if you have lived in Europe or been stationed as a soldier in Europe and guess what, if you have, they don’t want you … Mad Cow disease….

    we have the safest, most safeguarded food supply in the world in this country but by no means perfect given our own issues from time to time but if you listen to the right wing – folks like Marshall…. we don’t need no stinkin regulations…. it’s “bad” govt…. at it’s worst….

  4. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    I think Brother Bacon is a bit too cheerful. Basically, you have a situation in which the Chinese have come into hordes of cash, but most of their products they sell are cheap knock-downs. Or, they act assembly centers for Western or other more advanced Asian electronics.
    They do not really have any quality brands. Look at the Japanese. When Toyota slipped in quality a few years ago, there was grave concern at home, real apologies and then fixes. Ford has recalled thousands of vehicles.
    Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, ownership means control. Sure there’s FDA and other regulations in this country, but so much of our regulatory framework, thanks to anti-governemnt lobbying, is being done on a more or less voluntary basis with self-policing.
    It seems in this case that a cash-rich Chinese company with plenty of problems at home is picking up an American name brand whose executives have badly underperformed their peers. In this deals, top Smithfield brass could get $85 million:

    http://money.msn.com/now/smithfield-foods-management-reaps-dollar85m-prize

    Even so, we’re going to get a lot of free market happy talk like<they'll just become more like us even though they own us."

  5. Neil Haner Avatar
    Neil Haner

    Peter – you really need to do better research on the laws and regulations that apply here before you post.

    Nothing about the Federal Meat Inspection Act is “more or less voluntary,” nor one iota of “self-policing.”

    Every piece of meat that hits your grocer’s shelves was inspected at the processing location, at the slaughterhouse, and at the farm. That’s 100%. Multiple times over. That’s why the meat industry got into such an uproar over Sequestration… less inspection $$ meant the entire industry got held up so that the 100% standard could be maintained.

    And by the way, that standard also applies to every piece of meat imported into the country.

    I know you want to find a boogeyman here, but there isn’t one.

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Gee, Neil, you are right that I am no expert on meat inspection. But anyway, here’s what happened in the case of the FDA, Georgia regulators and Peanut Corp. of America (an AMERICAN company). The osurce is USA TODAY:

    “Peanut butter and peanut paste manufactured by Peanut Corp. has been tied to the salmonella outbreak that has sickened 501 people in 43 states and is believed to have contributed to eight deaths.

    The FDA said that its inspection of the plant found records of 12 instances in which plant officials identified salmonella in ingredients or finished products. The products should not have been shipped, the FDA says. PCA took no steps to address cleaning after finding the salmonella, says Michael Rogers, director of the FDA’s division of field investigations.”

  7. larryg Avatar

    I’m not buying it either. the meat inspections are not 100%. If they were, they would have caught the bad burgers at Jack-in-the-box and other similar failures.

    they are more random in nature.

    while a piece of meat might say USDA Choice – it does not mean that a govt inspector passed it. It means that the cut of meat met the govt standard for USDA Choice and that on a random basis, the govt checks to make sure that meat labeled as CHOICE – does meet that standard.

    but even then, we have people on the right arguing that we do not need meat inspections… that it’s “coercive” govt run amok.

  8. larryg Avatar

    so I have a question. Will China now be able to import meat and brand it as “Smithfield”?

Leave a Reply