Source: Tom Johnston, MEATINGPLACE, 11/5/18


At the end of July, Smithfield Foods suffered its third straight loss in the first three trials — out of 26 lawsuits — in which 500 eastern North Carolinians claim the company’s hog production system stinks. The third straight jury agreed that open-air pits containing pig dung and urine, and the farmers’ practice of spraying the effluent on their fields, devalued the neighbors’ quality of life. 

This jury, however, slapped a whopping $474 million price tag on their troubles — more than six times the amount of the awards in the first two trials combined. 

Initially, plaintiffs weren’t even asking Murphy-Brown LCC, Smithfield’s hog production subsidiary, to correct the alleged problems, which is why Smithfield called the litigation an “outrageous attack on animal agriculture” and a big money grab. But in mid-August, when the proceedings paused to allow Smithfield to appeal the first three rulings, the plaintiffs attorney’s filed for injunctive relief to force the company to pay for a laundry list of upgrades. 

With the fourth trial scheduled for Nov. 13, this battle has become more than a matter of compensation. It asks an important question about the future of modern animal agriculture: How can farms produce affordable animal protein in a way that processors, farmers and their neighbors can live with?

We explore in the Issues story, “Reflections in the pond,” in our October issue of Meatingplace magazine.

For more stories, go to www.meatingplace.com.