Smithfield’s Pope addresses doubts on merger during hearing

by Meat&Poultry staff
Share This:
Search for similar articles by keyword: [Smithfield Foods]
WASHINGTON — As anticipated, C. Larry Pope, president and CEO of Smithfield Foods, was vigorously questioned July 10 by Congressional lawmakers as to how the proposed $4.7 billion purchase of his company by Shuanghui International Holdings, China's largest meat producer, could impact the US food supply and agricultural producers.

This merger would be the largest takeover of a US company by a Chinese firm. The Shuanghui-Smithfield merger is expected to close later this year. Shareholders and regulators must approve the merger for it to be consummated.

Pope told a crowded Senate hearing that Smithfield remains committed to producing safe and plentiful food if the deal is approved. He named the benefits that would come from the takeover, including more jobs plus increased pork exports.

According to a report from USA Today, "This is a wonderful opportunity for the US to do what it does best: produce agriculture products and ship them around the world," Pope told the Senate Agriculture Committee. "This is an opportunity for US pork producers to grow."

Although Pope said the merger would have no noticeable impact on how Smithfield would do business both here and abroad – except to do more of it – committee members seemed unconvinced.

They relayed they were concerned the takeover would decrease the US pork supply as more pork is shipped to China plus the merger may result in the US being more susceptible to food-safety concerns that have affected Chinese companies, even Shuanghui. They also asked what would happen to Smithfield's intellectual property and the impact of the deal on US agriculture producers.

This deal needs to be a good one for US pork producers both in the short-term and long-term, said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Agriculture Committee chairperson. Pope said the transaction would open up the market for US pork farmers by giving them more access to Shuanghui's large distribution system and millions of Chinese consumers as well as other Asian countries.

Smithfield has iterated over and over again that the merged company would maintain its current management and facilities while maintaining its ongoing relationships with US pork producers, which Pope said again during his testimony. Meanwhile, some Senators including Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, as well as other lawmakers, have requested that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review the proposed merger and to include the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration in the process. After the July 10 hearing ended, lawmakers got together with CFIUS officials to question them about the proposed Smithfield merger.

Many have voiced concern about the proposed takeover regarding foreign investment in the US. Some fear China will be a more active player in the future.

"I think it is reasonable for you to expect a wave of Chinese investments into our food and agriculture industry, and this potential purchase is not a one-off," said Daniel Slane, a member of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the government agency that monitors trade and economic relationships between both countries. "Today, it's Smithfield, but tomorrow, it could be Consolidated Grain, ConAgra or Tyson Foods."

Slane charged Shuanghui probably views the deal as one way to get Smithfield's intellectual knowledge of meat processing and animal genetics plus this would help minimize the risk of volatile commodity prices.
Add a Comment
We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules.








The views expressed in the comments section of Meat and Poultry News do not reflect those of Meat and Poultry News or its parent company, Sosland Publishing Co., Kansas City, Mo. Concern regarding a specific comment may be registered with the Editor by clicking the Report Abuse link.


READER COMMENTS (5)

By R M FElts 7/12/2013 12:41:53 PM
I believe in the long run it will take more Pork out of the domestic market. Customers will have to pay more!!! Once the sale is made there will be no controls over where the meat is sold!!!! Maybe they should consider a traffic on exported food products??? Who will keep a eye on them???

By Gale Cardwell 7/11/2013 4:15:14 PM
I have tries to respond to this three time and keep gettimg area messages. Bottom line I against this as a citizen of the US. It is bad enough we borrow money from th now you are hoping to turn over or food supply.

By JanWindsong 7/11/2013 1:18:01 PM
I am relieved to see our govenrment stepping up and voicing their rightful position that this is not a good deal. The money exchange favor does not in any way balance the vulnerability to our food supply this deal risks. I will never buy this company's product again. It is obvious it is more important that the executive team enforce their networking then produce reliable food products. Even foods produced in the US that have Chinese links expose our citizens to dangerous and illegal components. A precise example3 if the recent revelation of wheat gluten contaminated with melanine and imported to use as an ingredient in dog biscuits made in the US and sold out of WalMart stores. Duplicity is not a welcome American value. Duplicity is apparently not seen as a fault in China and modern day American business.

By John White 7/11/2013 12:08:40 PM
Its not a surprise that the US Government would use this as a grandstand ploy. God do we need term limit's, spending limit's and a 3rd party. They just don't get it!

By John White 7/11/2013 12:08:36 PM
Its not a surprise that the US Government would use this as a grandstand ploy. God do we need term limit's, spending limit's and a 3rd party. They just don't get it!