fake news

Firing back against another attack on the pork industry

Another media outlet — funded by activists who oppose animal agriculture — has taken aim at North Carolina’s pork industry. The Food & Environment Report Network (FERN) and The Guardian published an article from a freelance reporter decrying the relatively low number of complaints filed against North Carolina hog farms and implying that complaints had “vanished.” (The News & Observer and The Charlotte Observer subsequently jumped at the opportunity to run another negative article about hog farmers.)

The article reports that North Carolina received only 33 public complaints against livestock operations from 2008 to 2018, while other hog states registered “literally thousands” during the same time period.  

An interesting theory, perhaps, but one that is factually wrong.

State records, publicly available and posted online, show that there were at least 474 complaints in North Carolina during that 10-year period. Not 33.

That’s still fewer than a state like Iowa, which had 2,393 complaints (assuming that data is accurate) during those ten years.

A good reporter might ask “why is that?” and do a little digging. He might, for example, consider that Iowa has three times as many hog farms as North Carolina.

Or, a good reporter might explain that North Carolina has one of the nation’s most stringent regulatory programs for hog farms, including mandatory on-site inspections of every hog farm in the state — every year — to ensure they are complying with the rules and regulations.


That means that, during that 10-year period, there were more than 24,000 on-site inspections of our hog farms. A good reporter might consider the idea that a rigorous inspection program leads to fewer complaints. Rather than attack state regulators, he might praise them. 

Instead, this freelance reporter jumps to his own conclusion and speculates that complaints simply vanish into thin air — despite no evidence to support that claim.

To bolster his argument, the reporter points to a sudden rise in complaints from November 2018 to April 2019.

The state received 138 complaints related to animal agriculture during that time-frame, resulting in 62 violations. Only 11 of those violations involved hog farmers. 

Two reactions:first, it’s worth noting that fewer than half of the complaints resulted in any type of violation. Farmers have often been upset about unfounded allegations that are made against them.

Second, if there were 11 violations against hog farms, that means there were 51 violations (82%) that involved something other than hog farming. So, why did the reporter direct his attack at hog farmers?

We all know the answer. Because hog farming is constantly in the cross-hairs. And activist organizations that want to do away with animal agriculture are often involved in directly funding this type of “reporting.” (Read more about that from the North Carolina Pork Council.)

The bias is clear.

Here’s one example: The article featured comments from Rene Miller, from Duplin County, who lives near a hog farm. Here’s what she says about living near a farm: “it smells like a body that’s been decomposed for a month.”

The reporter initially failed to mention that Miller is a plaintiff in the ongoing series of nuisance lawsuits filed against Murphy-Brown and thus had a clear motivation for making such outlandish, ridiculous and unbelievable comments.

But it sure did make a great quote! The Guardian actually used her quote as the headline for its story.

The reporter went on to dutifully highlight a litany of allegations against the pork industry, including unsupported claims of health issues and false accusations about the demographics around hog farms.  

The NC Pork Council provided detailed rebuttals to both “studies” — providing factual data about who lives near North Carolina hog farms and a report from a PhD that outlines serious problems with the health study mentioned in the article.

The reporter gave scant attention to those objections, mischaracterizing the Pork Council’s concerns and failing to explain why it believes the studies are flawed.

This type of reporting about our industry is disappointing, but not surprising. Our farmers have been under constant attack and there are no signs of it letting up. NC Farm Families will continue to stand up for our farmers and fight back against these blatant mischaracterizations of our industry.


One Farmer's Story

Fake news isn’t just a political phenomenon. If you click on the internet you’ll also find dozens of stories by the groups who are set on tarring and feathering hog farmers. Those stories say a lot of unfair things. One story I read said a woman couldn’t go outside and was a prisoner in her own home due to the odor from the hog farm next door. The problem was the lady was sitting on her front porch, outside, when she said it. Another political-type story – creating more fake news – used a long-discredited ‘study’ to say that hog farmers discriminate against people of color.But, every now and then, you’ll find a story that wasn’t written by a group with an axe to grind. Here’s one from a local newspaper, about a third-generation farmer who raises hogs on his 66 acre farm near Clarkton.web1_IMG_2106

Fake News?--Reported Flooded Hog Farm is Actually Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant

Last fall the day after the hurricane the Waterkeepers Alliance spun a tale to the Washington Post and the Post published this photograph (below) to prove hog farms swamped by the hurricane were spreading pollution:hookTwo days later Deborah Johnson of the Pork Council emailed the Post: This isn’t a photograph of a hog farm. It’s a municipal wastewater treatment plant.When the Post didn’t reply Johnson wrote a letter to the editor – but the Post didn’t publish the letter.Then Angela Fritz of the Post wrote her: “It’s been a busy week for us but I just wanted you to know that we received your email and we’ll get back to you soon.”No one heard from the Post for the next four months.Then, in February, Mrs. Fritz responded to another email by saying, Let me talk to my co-authors…and I’ll get back to you soon.March, April and part of May passed with the Pork Council asking over and over for a correction but the photo remained on the Post’s website. Then, almost seven months after the story ran, the Post published a correction – sort of. It added one line to the story on its website: “Correction: A previous version of this story included before-and-after photos of a flooded hog farm that was inactive. We have removed that photo.”With the stroke of a pen the Post had turned the Hookerton municipal waste treatment plant from a hog farm into an ‘inactive’ hog farm. At best, that’s a half-apology. But, at least, the newspaper removed the photo.