Fourth Hog Nuisance Case in in Favor of Plaintiffs... but Barely

The jury in the Fourth Hog Nuisance case against Smithfield gave a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. However, it was not a landslide decision. Not only did the jury declare to be hung at one point during deliberation, but they also decided to award the lowest compensatory damages to date. Four plaintiffs received $100. Two were awarded $1000 each. One was awarded $25,000, and the last was given $75,000.

 Although technically another negative verdict for hog farmers, we are grateful and (dare we say) excited that jury members recognized that hog farms do not ruin people’s lives so much as to award millions and millions of dollars.

 Plaintiff’s council asked the jury to award each plaintiff $4-5 million. We commend the jury for taking a reasonable approach. The claim that hog farms are a nuisance was given much doubt in this case, as seen by the jury’s difficulty in coming to a unanimous decision and because of the low awards. Punitive damages will be determined in the days to come.

 We are disappointed that hog farms are being heralded as a nuisance, and saddened at all of the families and jobs these verdicts negatively impact. However, we are clinging to the hope that doubt has been spread regarding the misinformation and tall tales being told about our farm families.

 The next trial is scheduled for January. It will once again be against Joey Carter and be presided over by Judge Britt.

 Farming is the profession of hope. We are weary, but hopeful yet.

 -The NC Farm Family Team

Too many Critics with Not Enough Credentials are Berating Hog Farmers

Have you ever been working on something, only to have someone who knows little about the subject tell you how to do it better? Ever felt like no matter what you do, it won’t be good enough?

Well, that’s how many hog farmers felt at the recent stakeholders meeting for the Swine Waste Management System Draft Permit.

Already one of the most regulated industries, hog farmers are facing even more regulations thanks to activist groups. It isn’t that hog farmers are opposed to regulations, we are opposed to pointless regulations based off misinformation.

At the permit meeting, representatives from the Waterkeeper Alliance and other groups, sat side by side with those who know the permit best—farmers and pork industry leaders who live an breathe this permit every day of their lives.

The meeting was filled with concerned people. Environmentalists were concerned with increasing regulations while farmers were concerned with explaining the futility of those additional regulations. Overall, it’s frustrating for others to call for regulation after regulation when farmers are working so hard to farm the right way.

There were also those who were experts in the subject and those who were not.

For example, the current state permit requires farmers to calibrate their irrigation equipment which includes pumps, reels, center pivots, and airway systems every 2 years in order to accurately monitor how much nitrogen and effluent is being applied to crops. One woman stood up during the public commenting session and thought this calibration was referring to lab equipment and suggested it be calibrated daily. The point is not the request, but rather the fact that she was requesting something without correct knowledge about the subject. Yet another comment was made comparing hog farms to waste-water treatment plants, suggesting we should be more like them. The fact that was failed to be mentioned was how often human waste is discharged and spilled into our waterways. We don’t expect everyone to know the ins and outs of hog farming, but if you are going to comment, please be well-informed.

To top it off NC Policy Watch’s Lisa Sorg wrote yet another slanted article titled “Swine farmers, hog industry turns out in force to oppose revisions to draft permit.” Her lengthy article was filled with concerning statements. One example is when Sorg decided to compare enforcement actions against water treatment plants and hog farms to how much revenue each of them produces. She compared the revenue of a small population town to the entire Smithfield company (apples to oranges anyone?).  As if it’s okay that a small population town that generates less revenue, spills untreated wastewater into state waters, but it isn't okay if hog farmers do. Revenue aside, neither should be spilling waste. It’s absurd that such comparisons be made, but that is par for the course from NC Policy Watch.

In short, there are too many critics with not enough credentials berating the hog industry. Farmers are experts in their field. Trust them.

-Chad HerringExecutive Director of NCFF

Cheap Shots Taken in Recent Article About Hog Farmers

It’s no secret that the newspaper business is struggling mightily. Here’s the impact: Smaller staffs means that The News & Observer and others now rely on stories they didn’t write more and more frequently. It pays for some stories, like those by the Associated Press, while others are free.

We tell you this because The News & Observer just published a story about hog farmers that was written by ProPublica.

Who is ProPublica?

It’s a nonprofit news group that receives funding from, among other sources, foundations that also support groups opposed to animal agriculture. ProPublica writes the stories, then provides them to newspapers looking for stories to publish.

The negative slant of ProPublica’s story about hog farmers is no surprise. It read like a compilation of all the unkind stories written by partisan groups like the Waterkeepers Alliance. And it featured familiar characters, like Elsie Herring, repeating a familiar litany of complaints: She can’t go outside. She can’t open her windows. She’s a prisoner in her own home. All because she lives near a hog farm.

But at the top of the same story in The News and Observer there was a picture of the ‘woman who can’t go outside’ — standing outside in front of her home.

Herring once claimed the hog farmer next to her home sprayed his field “three or four days on a slow week” and sometimes “daily” and sometimes “at night.” (She’s also claimed that he sprays eight feet from her front door, which clearly isn’t true.)

Every time a farmer applies effluent, the law requires him to keep a record for state inspectors.

So, what do the records show? That he uses that field very infrequently. Records from 2017 show that the farmer only used the field near Herring’s home twice — and he continues to use the field only on rare occasions.

ProPublica didn’t tell you that.ProPublica wrote about the pork industry’s supposed “political clout,” reporting that farmers and farm groups have contributed more than $16 million to politicians over the past 18 years. But it didn’t mention the political influence of those opposed to hog farming. Trial lawyers, in particular,are politically well connected, both individually and through their powerful political action committee.

You find the same type of slanted reporting throughout the story.

ProPublica reported that 33 lagoons “overflowed” during Hurricane Florence. But it failed to mention that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality correctly characterized the overflow as “diluted storm water” in a public meeting last week. The fact is that more than 98% of the state’s 3,300 lagoons came through the hurricane just fine.

ProPublica wrote about the nuisance lawsuits against Smithfield Foods. But it didn’t mention the lawsuits were started by predatory out-of-state lawyers who promised big paydays for those who signed up. The attorneys were thrown off the case for their unethical behavior in recruiting clients.

And ProPublica wrote how in a state “where Confederate Monuments still stand,” agriculture has its roots “in the plantation system and slavery.”

Is that unbiased investigative journalism? It sure sounds a lot like the work of someone with an activist agenda.

ProPublica’s cheap shots went on and on. And The News and Observer published every single one of them.