Resources

The international outlook is positive for China’s pork industry

Editor in charge: Zheng Shanshan / Proofreading: Zheng Shanshan

One of the largest cross-border bonds issued by a Chinese pork company occurred in 2013 when Shuanghui International Holdings acquired Smithfield Corporation of the United States. The latter is the world’s leading pig breeding base, while the former is one of the best meat processing companies in China, and has successively invested in and acquired meat-related companies in Brazil, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and other countries.

What gave Chinese pork companies the right to speak in the European pork market was the acquisition of Danish Crown by Ningbo Tianbang Foods. Denmark is a big pork producer, and Crown Group is one of the largest meat processing companies in the country. In Australia, COFCO Meat acquired a majority stake in QAF, a well-known pork producer in the country, marking an important move for China to enter the pork industry in the southern hemisphere.

The EATS Act: Good for China, Bad for American Farmers

Chinese interests are not solely focused on land rights; they are aggressively acquiring entire agricultural companies, posing a significant threat to our farming sovereignty. Enacting the Hinson/Marshall Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act via the Farm Bill would eliminate hundreds of state agricultural laws, effectively paving the way for a regulatory void. This absence of rules, particularly in areas where none currently exist, would create an environment in which large Chinese corporations like Smithfield Foods and others can easily expand across all 50 states without having to comply with state laws.

Summary:

• R.3712, the Digital Dollar Pilot Prevention Act, was introduced by Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) and quickly found support amongst moderate Republicans and members of the Freedom Caucus. The bill stops the Federal Reserve from creating the digital dollar, a centralized digital currency that tracks and monitors Americans’ spending.

What are the Dangers of the Digital Dollar?

• The “Digital Dollar” is the first step towards the government creating a social credit system like in Communist China.
• Proponents of the digital dollar wish to create a government controlled virtual currency to drive users away from free-market crypto-currency exchanges.
• The more market share the digital dollar has, the more likely the government can control the personal finances of all Americans.
• Outside of a court order, third parties, like banks and crypto exchanges, are the only entities that can track their customers’ spending habits. Users of the digital dollar will not be afforded this firewall because their data will already be in the hands of the Federal Reserve to do as they see fit.
  • Simply put: The digital dollar is dangerous because it undermines free-market principles and gives sway for a tyrannical government to leverage personal spending data and target political opponents.

The Digital Dollar Pilot Prevention Act – Preventing the Digital Dollar from Getting Off the Ground:

• The government creates pilot programs to test-run policies they wish to enact. The Digital Dollar Pilot Prevention Act stops the Federal Reserve from creating a pilot program to test the feasibility of a digital dollar, thus stopping the creation of the digital dollar in its track.

The Latest on the Digital Dollar Pilot Prevention Act:

• The bill was sent in May 2023 to the House Finance Committee where it remains.

MYTH: Baby pigs are getting crushed in these open housing arrangements mandated by California’s Prop 12 and other similar laws.

FACT: Baby pigs aren’t even in these housing arrangements. This claim isn’t even narrowly true, because gestation crates are only used while pigs are pregnant. In other words, there are no piglets that could, in theory, be crushed. Prior to giving birth and through the three weeks of nursing their young, producers move mother pigs inside farrowing crates. NO STATE LAW BANS FARROWING CRATES.

FARMERS, RANCHERS OPPOSE THE EATS ACT (H.R.4417/S.2019, 118TH)

Introduced by Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, H.R.4417/S.2019, would strip certain lawmaking powers from states and consolidate those powers within the federal government. If enacted into law, the EATS Act would wipe out thousands of state and local laws in the agriculture policy jurisdiction. These laws often benefit family farms over international conglomerates, including those based in China and Brazil.

Summary:

• The OFF Act is a true case of the “two ends of the horseshoe” coming together. Both the libertarian right and the progressive right support the OFF Act which seeks to bring accountability and transparency to corrupt USDA checkoff programs.

What does the OFF Act do?

• The bill prohibits check-off dollars, monies farmers are forced to by when they sell their commodity, from being used to lobby the government. It also requires these programs to go through an independent audit and submit their congressionally mandated financial reports on time.

What’s the Big Deal?

• The OFF is important because checkoff programs are meant to advocate on behalf of farmers. In reality, they act as trade associations for the largest packers and consolidators in the agricultural space who often work against the best interests of farmers. Furthermore, the largest checkoff programs operate under a veil of secrecy. Audits about the usage of farmer dollars are not made public to the farmers themselves. Financial reports required to be submitted to Congress are never sent. In essence, these opaque programs meant to support farmers are funding the interests which are driving them out of business.

What’s the Latest?

• The Senate version, 557, has been referred to the Senate Agriculture Committee.
• The House version, R. 7187, has been referred to the House Agriculture Committee

Summary:

• The bipartisan CARE Act, introduced by Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL), seeks to keep foster siblings together and expand federal reimbursement eligibility to “cottage homes,” or, houses in traditional family environments with full-time, live-in, and trained parents, managed by licensed public and private child welfare agencies.

Keeping Siblings Together and Combating Shortages in Housing:

• Between 2019 – 2023, almost every state experienced a decline in the number of licensed foster parents. It is also estimated that 53% – 80% of siblings are separated during foster care.
• Making cottage homes that are managed by licensed agencies eligible for federal reimbursement will increase the number of homes for children. The CARE Act specifically mentions these cottage homes must facilitate sibling unity.

Maintaining the Family Bond:

• The CARE Act keeps family bonds together.
• 53% of those who left foster care were reunited with their families or a living relative.
• The CARE Act states cottage homes must encourage and support continuous communication between the foster children and their families, unless otherwise prevented by court order.

Creating Safeguards for the Well-Being of the Child:

• The CARE Act also creates safeguards to ensure children have the same freedoms as their non-foster peers. Cottage homes must consider a child’s perception of quality care and improve upon them. They must also provide a system for a child to alert a staff member if they feel mistreated. A child must also have the same freedom afforded to their non-foster peers to develop, learn, and play.

Foster Care – By the Numbers:

• A recent HHS report found that there are 368,500 children and youth in foster care.
• As of 2021, the states with the highest number of foster children were California (47,871), Texas (28,042), and Florida (23,507).

Where does the CARE Act stand in Congress?

• Latest Action: Referred to the House Ways and Means Committee