Talk:Smithfield Foods

RfC: General Article Help and Vertical Integration section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All, we've gone back and forth on the talk page here on a number of issues, one being a discussion as to whether or not the article gives undue weight to certain topics. As an employee of the company, I cannot (or should not) make edits to the article myself, so I thought I would put in a request for comment.

One issue in particular that could use some attention is the "Vertical Integration" section. The last paragraph in that section is not at all related to the subject of Vertical Integration. I'd like to get some feedback on that section (or other sections).

Thanks! Kkirkham (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

When you mention "[the] last paragraph in that section," are your referring to the paragraph that begins, "The pigs are housed together?" If so, that seems to me to be a reasonable continuation of the previous paragraph and therefore closely enough related to the topic of "Vertical Integration" that I would think that it could stand. That being said, I share your concern in watching for disproportionately negative content and so am sensitive to your raising this matter (without making a judgment as to whether this article currently contains disproportionately negative content). Perhaps the author (or a consensus of editors) would consent to moving it to another section, or the creation of a new subsection of the "Vertical Integration" section that more clearly delineates the boundary between neutrality and "legitimate criticism."   SteveT (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. That is the paragraph I was referring to, but I still stand by my opinion that it is not related to vertical integration. Any company (regardless of industry) can be vertically integrated--it simply means controlling your inputs all the way through the supply chain. Therefore, a detailed discussion of the way pigs are housed and waste systems don't fit in with this discussion. The company could be vertically integrated regardless of the pig housing systems used, and therefore I don't believe this content is relevant in this section.

Also, the section cites articles on "Intensive Pig Farming" and "Factory Farming" as links for further information; both of which are not related to the subject of being vertically integrated. That's my two cents. Kkirkham (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replying! My response would be that your objection that the paragraph "is not related to vertical integration. Any company ... can be vertically integrated..." does not, in my opinion, necessarily mean the paragraph in question should be removed. Having said that, I would have no objection to removing it or moving it to another section or subsection.

Parenthetically, I don't believe it to be true that "vertically integrated ... means controlling your inputs all the way through the supply chain" -- I think that if a company operates in any two (or more) levels of their supply chain, there is vertical integration.   SteveT (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Got this from Feedback Request Service. Both of the above definitions of vertical integration are correct, one in the strict sense (completely integrated), and one in the weak sense (partially integrated). And, as a completely uninvolved editor (I may have eaten Smithfield pork in the past, I don't know), intensive pig farming/factory farming has absolutely nothing to do with vertical integration. If it's presented in a way that criticizes factory farming (viz environmentalists, organic activists, animal rights activists), it should be in some other section, or in a "criticism" section, or sub-section, as any vertical integration or lack thereof, or any criticism of said vertical integration, has no bearing one way or the other on factory farming, which is taken to be an animal-ethical, not business-ethical or monopolistic, issue. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As a further comment not directly related to the RfC, I believe KKirkham has mostly valid concerns about the article, with the proviso that I would phrase it thus: that the article is not biased against Smithfield Foods qua Smithfield Foods (that is, as unique to that specific company's practices), but is (quite heavily) biased towards an animal-rights activist presentation of (pig, animal) farming in general (which, beyond the State Veterinary Report, has little bearing directly on this company as one among all that practice such methods of farming), as the majority of the stuff could be shoehorned in to the article of any organization or company that practices such farming methods. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 22:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, Thanks so much for your feedback on this issue. I've taken a stab at re-working the section on my Sandbox page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kkirkham/sandbox). What do you guys think of this version? I tried to keep it to factual, neutral information. See what you think and feel free to make suggestions. Kkirkham (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone had a chance to look at the Vertical Integration section I drafted above? I'd love some feedback. Thanks! Kkirkham (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Now it seems to be in danger of running afoul of WP:NPOV in the other direction. However, I have no strong objection to it. In fact, in accordance with the principle of WP:Be Bold, I'm inclined to say you should go ahead and edit the article to include your section. Surely three-and-a-half weeks is long enough for someone to have raised an objection!   SteveT (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the rewrite as long as the information in the 3rd graph is integrated into the Environmental and Welfare sections. For instance, that EPA violation is to this date (I believe, have to check) the largest fine ever imposed and is therefore historically relevant. But it's mentioned further down so would just need to expand upon it there, as well as the Rolling Stone article. I can take a shot at that if everyone is happy with Kkirkahm's work.Bob98133 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No objections. TFD (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok great. Thanks for the feedback, all. I'll go ahead and make the edits. Kkirkham (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's inappropriate for Smithfield Foods (or anyone else) to remove details of how the company houses the pigs and handles the waste. The sources are good, and include a piece of award-winning journalism from Jeff Tietz. There have been several attempts to remove this source from the article; the company strongly dislikes it, but then companies do not usually like investigative journalism. A discussion on the RSN recently agreed that it was a reliable source. So, please, no more attempts to remove material that is well-sourced and directly relevant. And Kkirkham, please do not edit this article again. See WP:NOPAY for the guideline: "If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly ..." Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, providing the proposed edit is fully discussed for a reasonable length of time, as it was in this case (discussion began 25 October 2012, decision made to go ahead with the edit 16:06, 10 December 2012), making it a group edit, not a personal edit by Kkirkham. Even if there were a consensus that it had been an inappropriate edit after it was made, it can be easily re-edited or removed. I would resist the idea of such censorship -- even the company and its stakeholders can provide worthwhile input!   SteveT (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pregnant Sows Section

All,

I have concerns about the Pregnant Sow section of the article. It seems to be too heavily-focused on gestation crates themselves, and not specifically on Smithfield's use of the crates. Just as I did with the Vertical Integration section, I've taken a crack at re-working the section to be more centered on Smithfield's use of gestation crates and their announcements surrounding them. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kkirkham/sandbox

I also have concerns about the photo chosen, as it was taken from an animal activist group's video. I've suggested another photo, which is the one used as the primary photo in the Gestation Crate article.

Please let me know if there are any comments or feedback on my draft of the section. Thanks! Kkirkham (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about replacing the picture, since it is specifically a Smithfield location (and you're trying to make this specifically about Smithfield), and there's not much difference b/w that and the generic one. I'm hoping maybe SlimVirgin will check in since he's/she's the one who added that picture. Otherwise, I don't have any problem with your rewrite, exception being that since you're citing a primary source as the reference for the stated goal for conversion, I think the wording should be closer to it, i.e. "plan to meet their original goal" or "intend to meet their original goal." "Would meet" doesn't account for the "unforeseen circumstances" that the press release does. Cheers! Bob98133 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Kkirkham is trying to remove everything that is critical of the company, and it really needs to stop. The image is of a Smithfield stall. When we were using a generic one, Kkirkham objected to it, and insisted that we find one of a Smithfield stall. I therefore got a release from the Humane Society of the United States (an animal welfare group, not an animal rights group) for one they took inside Smithfield. I deliberately added one that did not show the pigs in obvious distress, or show pigs that looked unhealthy, had wounds or were bleeding. Yet still there is an attempt to remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment in the "RfC: General Article Help and Vertical Integration section" section dated 04:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC). Your first sentence here (just above) seems to me just as much a violation of neutrality as you seem to be accusing Kkirkham of being guilty. Let's have a freewheeling, open discussion of everyone's suggestions, not blackball people because they might have a particular interest.   SteveT (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've incorporated the suggestions in Kirkham's sandbox (diff), except for the removal of the image. The company's objection to that image is that it shows how little space the pigs have to move, and why they can't turn round. This is directly relevant to the section and to the complaints about the use of the crates. It is a freely licensed, good-quality image of a Smithfield stall (and I obtained the release only because Kkirkham asked that we use an image of an actual Smithfield stall), and it illustrates why even McDonald's complained about the company's use of these crates. Temple Grandin, who became a Smithfield consultant, also complained about them, saying (from memory) that it was like asking someone to live on an airline seat. Again, this image shows what she meant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of removing "everything critical of the company." You'll notice that in my Sandbox draft of this section I included the fact that gestation stalls had been criticized by many different groups. My aim is to ensure that Smithfield is represented in an accurate and fair manner, not to in some way white-wash the article.

My reason for using the image I suggested on my Sandbox page instead of the one currently in the article was not because "it shows how little space the pigs have to move and why they can't turn around," as you suggest. I asked for the other image to be used because the current image was sourced from an animal activist group, and in the interest of remaining NPOV, I suggested that we use an unbiased image from the "Gestation Crates" page. The reason I had originally had a problem with the image used in the article was that the original image in the article showed gross negligence and filth, and there is no evidence that this had occurred at a Smithfield facility. I didn't necessarily want an image of a Smithfield farm, but rather my intent was that the image reflected poorly upon Smithfield even though we had no connection with that image. I think the best thing to do here would be to use a third-party image that didn't come directly from us here at Smithfield, but also is not sourced from an animal activist group.

Also, the statement "The company keeps pregnant sows in gestation crates" is misleading, as the company is actively transitioning away from this method of housing, and 30% of Smithfield's pregnant sows are already housed in group pens. In addition, the amount of time spent by sows in various parts of the production process varies from farm to farm (I believe the resting period varies, for example) so we need to stay away from imposing timelines on things that we don't know for sure or that vary. My suggestion would be to remove the current first sentence in favor of something like this: "The majority of pork production systems in the United States use individual stalls to house sows during their pregnancy. These stalls, termed gestation stalls or gestation crates, have come under criticism by animal welfare groups, supermarket chains, etc. etc." I think that sentence more accurately provides an accurate context for what these stalls/crates are and how they are used in pork production. Thoughts from the group? Kkirkham (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If we have a freely licenced, high-quality image of a Smithfield stall, we have no reason to use any other. It doesn't matter for our purposes who took the photograph; the only thing that matters is whether it is free, representative, and of reasonable quality.

You wrote above: "I didn't necessarily want an image of a Smithfield farm ..." But you did insist that we use one of Smithfield, not a generic one. You wanted us to use a fair-use image of a Smithfield stall, and wrote on 18 September as part of the rationale (now deleted): "Other images could/should not be used since the article is talking about facilities owned by a particular company, so the article should show equipment/facilities from that company, if possible." That is why I obtained this release.

If you want to add one taken by Smithfield Foods you're welcome to do that and we can show them side by side (so long as it's released and is definitely of the gestation crates – the fair-use one you wanted us to use was taken in the birthing room, as I recall, according to the voiceover on the video it came from). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My mistake--after reading your recollection of my previous statements about the photo, I do remember saying what you quoted. I just remembered my motivation, and forgot how I worded it, so I was wrong on that. Changing the photo again is a fairly minor issue to me since you are correct that the new photo was taken at a Smithfield facility, although I would still be interested to hear from other editors which photo they think is most appropriate for us to use in this case, given that the one you sourced is from an animal activist group.

How do folks react to my other questions about the first sentence of the paragraph? Kkirkham (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the re-write is fine and also that it is biased to present the current image which does not appear to be representative of animal treatment as described by the state veterinarian. While I appreciate opposition to intensive farming, I think that the article overemphasizes this issue. TFD (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, TFD. Would you be willing to make the changes you suggested (the rewrite of the first sentence and changing the photo)? As an employee of the company, I try to avoid making edits myself wherever possible, so I'd appreciate it if you wanted to make those changes yourself, or of course we can ask for more feedback if you're not quite confident in them. Let me know how I can help, Kkirkham (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I put in Kkirkham's text. We need to resolve which if any image to use. Does anyone know if Smithfield or a third party has confirmed the Humane Society picture as accurate? I do not think the it is appropriate because it may not be representative. I would like to hear from other editors though and then consider getting further input from WP:NPOVN. TFD (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of which image to use at the neutrality noticeboard.[1] TFD (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD--SlimVirgin has reverted your text edits to the section and made some edits of her own without posting a rationale here. I'm relatively new to Wiki so I'm not totally sure of etiquette, but that seems inappropriate to me? Kkirkham (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lagoons at Farms and Processing Facilities

All,

I wanted to raise an issue for discussion regarding the Housing and Lagoons and Environmental Record sections. Much of the information about our anaerobic lagoons is, while cited to a Rolling Stone article, simply untrue. How should we handle the fact that this information is inaccurate? For example, the paragraph states "The area around one slaughterhouse can contain hundreds of these lagoons" which is a direct quote from the article. However, this is simply false. Our processing facilities normally have 1-2 lagoons, and the max number any facility has in our system is 3.

The Clean Water Act requires that any waste from our processing facility must either meet a very stringent level of requirements to allow the water to be directly discharged into a local waterway, or (most commonly) for all waste from our facility to be partially treated at our facility and then directly delivered to a municipal waste treatment plant for further treatment (just like our human waste). Not doing this would result in a fine for the company and a Notice of Violation to be issued.

The section also says that the lagoon "overflows when it rains and that the liners can be punctured by rocks." In reality, there are extremely stringent federal and state regulations within the Clean Water Act that prohibit a lagoon from even nearing the point where it could overflow. Non-compliance results in a Notice of Violation (of which our farms received zero in 2011, even though we operate hundreds of farms throughout the country). The puncturing of liners is extremely unusual, but if that were to occur, federal regulations would require a corrective action plan to be developed and a repair of the lagoon would be required.

In addition, the Environmental Record section states that the material is untreated in these lagoons. This is also simply false. Nutrient management is a complex science, and these lagoons use naturally-occurring bacteria to treat the manure. With this treatment system, we achieve up to 95 percent reductions in volatile solids and 85 percent reductions in biological oxygen demand (a common measure of the amount of oxygen necessary for bacteria to break down organic material in water). What remains is an anaerobically digested, low-solids effluent product that is highly suitable for use as an organic fertilizer and is applied for that purpose.

All of these requirements can be found in the Clean Water Act, found here: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.cfm?program_id=45

How should we handle these issues? Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kkirkham, Frankly, your saying that information from legitimate sources is false isn't enough to have something changed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. The only way you'll be able to get this changed or removed is by finding legitimate sources that refute the information in the articles you question. Bob98133 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well put, Bob98133. Now: sign me up as a cynic on the subject of the reliability of Rolling Stone. On the Wikipedia page about Rolling Stone, I see such phrasing as "Rolling Stone is ... devoted to music, liberal politics, and popular culture" and "Rolling Stone is known for its political coverage which began in the 1970s by the enigmatic and controversial gonzo journalist, Hunter S. Thompson" and "The magazine is now known for its strong liberal bent." I conclude that Kkirkham's refutations of a Rolling Stone article's claims are no less reliable than that which he refutes; considering his cautiousness and free participation here, I see them as considerably more reliable. SteveT (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input--I totally agree with Bob98133 that just because I say something doesn't necessarily make it true and credible. The regulations I reference, however, are publicly available and verifiable at the link I provided to the Clean Water Act, and can definitely be used as a source to refute what the Rolling Stone article said. As far as how many lagoons are at our facilities, it's a little trickier to refute---what I've said here is true and can be verified simply by looking at Google maps satellite images of our processing facilities, but there have not been any articles written (to my knowledge) about the subject. I will look around to see if I can find something out in the public domain that documents it. It is frustrating, though, that Rolling Stone can say something false (with no proof) and it is still counted as a credible source, but statements from us cannot be counted as such without documented proof. Kkirkham (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Kkirkham on this point: it seems problematic that an obviously inaccurate article from a biased source is considered RS, but the company's response, while demonstrably true, is automatically deemed unreliable. This sure looks like a double standard in how our policies are applied. Not exactly an even playing field is it? Doc Tropics 17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This type of issue has come up on other articles. I think the policy that is most appropriate is neutrality. We need to assign the weight one would expect in high quality sources, and it would be helpful to identify some for this article. That usually resolves problems of factuality, because secondary sources can weigh and compare original claims. It would be helpful to have better sources and they need not be in the public domain. TFD (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi TFD--I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean here. Are you saying that you'd like me to identify some sources for our number of lagoons, even if they are not in the public domain? Kkirkham (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought by public domain you meant not protected by copyright. There must be high quality sources such as studies in academic books and journals in business, agricultural sciences and other disciplines which may not appear on the web or may require payment to view. Smithfield Foods should be aware of any. TFD (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sources and sourced material

Doc Tropics has again removed material and several reliable sources [2] (including The New York Times and the Associated Press) that were removed weeks ago by The Four Deuces [3] at the request of Kkirkham (for Smithfield Foods).

I asked The Four Deuces at the time why he had removed them, and he said he had done so in error, so I don't know why Doc Tropics has repeated that edit. I would ask Kkirkham please to stop removing sources, or asking anyone else to do it for her. If there is an error in the article, please post it here.

As for the Jeff Tietz article, Doc Tropics tried to remove Tietz as a source months ago, but uninvolved editors at the RSN decided that the article was a reliable source. Regarding whether there are ever hundreds of lagoons around these facilities, that is a factual issue that should be easy enough to establish, so I've made the sentence invisible for now. Here is Tietz's article and Smithfield's response. Smithfield doesn't say that there are never hundreds of lagoons, so what is leading us to think that Tietz might be wrong? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look at the academic literature on the lagoons, and I've found one person who seems to be an uninvolved expert. I'm going to email him and ask whether any Smithfield facility ever has 100 lagoons around it, and what to use as a source. Will post here if I get more information.

In the meantime, it would help if Kkirkham could post a list of errors (which I've requested several times on this page), assuming there are any, together with sources that we could use to correct those errors. Or, even if she can't recommend sources, at least provide a list of the things she believes are mistakes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason we think Tietz might be wrong? Because Smithfield demonstrated that his article contained over 20 major errors, both factual and technical. With that track record it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that any of his details are correct without verification from an independent RS. Doc Tropics 22:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Smithfield published a response, but we're not in a position to judge whether what they say is correct. We can only go by what each source says, and Smithfield does not say that Tietz was wrong about the number of lagoons. But I have emailed an expert. If I get no response, I'll email another one. It seems to be a straightforward factual issue, so it should be easy to resolve. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin offers: "In the meantime, it would help if Kkirkham could post a list of errors (which I've requested several times on this page), assuming there are any, together with sources that we could use to correct those errors. Or, even if she can't recommend sources, at least provide a list of the things she believes are mistakes." As if Kkirkham weren't extraordinarily prolific about posting what (s)he considers to be errors here! I count 14 posts by Kkirkham among the most recent 50 and, although perhaps not all of them are new alleged errors, I don't see how one can reasonably claim that Kkirkham is not being responsive to requests to discuss alleged errors here before making or asking someone else to make changes. SteveT (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Kkirkham requests the removal of material that the company doesn't like. That's not the same as listing errors (though she has said for several months that the article contains them). I've requested a list of errors several times, to no avail, so I'll ask again. Something like the following would be helpful. I've filled in the first one from her post above; I'm in the process of checking it and have made the sentence invisible in the meantime:

• This is wrong. "The area around one slaughterhouse can contain hundreds of these lagoons."
• This is wrong. Quote sentence.
• This is wrong. Quote sentence.
• This needs updating. Quote sentence.

With sources if possible (preferably independent ones), because then we can act quickly, but without sources would be helpful too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that in October in this edit, The Four Deuces removed material from the HSUS section that was sourced to the Associated Press, and turned the section chronology upside down. So instead of the section being about the HSUS investigation (reported by the Associated Press and New York Times), he made it about the state vet's visit in response to the investigation, and called it "2011 State Veterinarian Visit." This makes no sense at all. The vet visited only because Smithfield requested it, and Smithfield requested it only because of the HSUS investigation.

The Four Deuces also removed – at the request of Smithfield Foods – several reliable sources in this edit on January 7. He removed two articles from The Washington Post, [4] [5] and one from The Atlantic, [6] but he left the Smithfield source intact. In fact, he left the whole section relying only on Smithfield Foods. He said later this was an error, but then yesterday, without explanation, Doc Tropics restored the edit. Doc Tropics previously tried to argue that the Jeff Tietz article was not a reliable source.

I don't know what's going on here, but it isn't good editing. Wikipedia is about publishing information, not hiding it. Our articles should reflect what secondary sources are saying, per V and NPOV, not what the company is saying about itself. The latter is included, but the article can't focus on it as though it is an extension of Smithfield's website, and we certainly can't remove reliable sources because the company requests it. I really hope that kind of editing will stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And I hope that your ungrounded and repetitive assertions of bad faith will stop. I see that you have established yourself as the ultimate arbiter of what goes into this article and what does not. You routinely change the article against consensus, but automatically revert the contributions of all other editors. That is unacceptable behavior in a collaborative editing environment. Very specifically, Kkirkham's approach to handling this situation in accordance with our policies has ranged from "good" (good intentions were initially hampered by minor errors) to "exemplary" (abides absolutely by all policies and principles while working to improve article). K has in fact, behaved much better than you have. In my locale your accusations would be referred to as the pot calling the kettle black. Doc Tropics 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)