Largest Pork Producer in the U.S. Now Owned by $22 Billion Chinese Meat Processing Company

Most people know the name Smithfield from bacon packages or racks of ribs at the grocery store. But many do not realize that a Chinese conglomerate now owns this all-American brand and controls a significant part of the U.S. pork supply.

More than a decade ago, something shifted. The change happened quietly, without much public attention, but it now reaches into grocery aisles, farmland, and rural towns. This is not just a story about pork. It is about who gets to shape the food system, and who lives with the consequences.

What happens when the country’s largest pork producer answers to outside interests? And what does it mean for the communities who live near the farms, the families who buy the products, and the environment that carries the weight?

Background and Acquisition

The Smithfield Corporation, headquartered in Smithfield, Virginia, is known for its sausages, roasts, ribs, bacon, and more. In 2013, it was purchased by WH Foods of China, a company that generated $22.3 billion in revenue in 2017. The acquisition allowed WH Foods to expand its global presence and secure a steady supply of pork for the Chinese market, which has been affected by African swine fever and a decline in pig population. Smithfield does not disclose the exact amount of meat it exports to China, but the company sold about 38.8 million pounds of pork to the country during a few months.

A Quiet Takeover

In 2013, Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the United States, was sold for $4.7 billion to Shuanghui International, now called WH Group. The deal marked the largest-ever Chinese acquisition of an American company. Yet over a decade later, most consumers still do not know that one of the most familiar brands in U.S. grocery stores operates under foreign ownership.

The deal triggered a formal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), with lawmakers raising questions about national security and food sovereignty. In a July 2013 hearing titled Smithfield and Beyond: Examining Foreign Purchases of American Food Companies, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow expressed deep concern, “This acquisition raises questions not only about food safety, but also about broader issues of national security, our economic future, and whether or not we are going to continue to produce food here in America.” Senator Chuck Grassley underscored the urgency of the issue, stating, “America’s food supply is critical infrastructure and should be treated as such when reviewing foreign investment.”

In 2013, Smithfield Foods, world’s largest pork producer, was acquired by WH Group, a Chinese meat processing company, in a $4.7 billion deal, marking the largest Chinese acquisition of a US company at the time. China owns 146,000 acres of US soil from this deal. Seize it all. pic.twitter.com/dBQGBHvs4o

— Because We Live Here 🇺🇸 (@BWLH_) April 8, 2025

WH Group, which reported $22.3 billion in revenue by 2017, had clear reasons for the acquisition. China’s pork industry had collapsed under the pressure of African swine fever outbreaks and shrinking herd numbers. Buying Smithfield gave WH Group access to a vertically integrated pork supply chain and a direct line to American meat exports.

While Smithfield does not disclose detailed export volumes, USDA trade reports confirm a post-acquisition rise in U.S. pork shipments to China during years of domestic shortage. China’s demand for imported pork soared in response to herd losses and rising consumer needs. As a result, Smithfield became a critical player in maintaining pork flow between U.S. farms and Chinese markets.

Although Smithfield continues to operate under its original name, its ownership structure has changed the dynamics of decision-making. Critics argue that foreign control over food assets creates vulnerabilities in national supply chains. Others say the deal simply reflects the realities of a globalized economy.

Either way, the sale marked a turning point in how American food production connects to the world—and how quietly power can shift without most consumers even noticing.

Environmental Fallout and Lasting Damage

Behind the scenes of America’s pork production lies a story that many consumers rarely hear. Smithfield Foods, the country’s largest pork producer, relies on a system of industrial farming that has triggered years of legal and environmental pushback — particularly in North Carolina, where many of its facilities are based.

The company’s waste disposal method, known as the “lagoon and spray field system,” involves flushing tons of pig waste into open pits, then spraying the liquid onto nearby fields. While legal, this method has drawn criticism for its harmful environmental effects. The surrounding air often carries the smell of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, and studies have linked exposure to such pollutants with respiratory problems and reduced quality of life.

Research published by Wing et al. (2013) found that communities located near these concentrated animal feeding operations reported higher rates of low birth weight, anemia, and kidney disease among residents.

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Smithfield had agreed to pay $12.6 million in penalties for violating the Clean Water Act — at the time, the largest civil-penalty settlement ever for environmental violations under the statute. The company was found to have illegally discharged millions of gallons of wastewater from its pork processing plants into the Pagan River in Virginia.

In North Carolina, residents have filed a wave of nuisance lawsuits against Smithfield’s contractors. Plaintiffs described the impact of odor, water contamination, and noise from nearby farms. According to legal analysts, these cases set a precedent for concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) litigation across the country. The first five trials alone resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damages before being reduced due to state caps.

While Smithfield maintains that it operates within environmental regulations and has piloted waste-to-energy solutions on some farms, the damage to community trust and local ecosystems remains difficult to repair. These lawsuits and studies show a broader issue: when industrial farming scales up, the surrounding environment often pays the price. Residents often lack the legal or political power to demand change. Even in states where juries have ruled in their favor and awarded millions in damages, the factories continue operating.

How to Stay Informed and Make Smarter Choices

The Smithfield story isn’t just about pork but about who holds the power in our food system and what gets overlooked when convenience takes the lead. If you want to stay aware and make choices that reflect your values, here are a few starting points:

• Read the label beyond the logo
  A familiar brand name doesn’t always mean the company behind it is the same. Look up who owns the brand you’re buying. Knowing the parent company can give you a clearer sense of where your money goes.
• Support producers who prioritize transparency
  Not all farms operate like Smithfield. Some are smaller, some are local, and many try to do better. When you have the option, choose producers who are open about how they raise and process animals.
• Pay attention to the communities affected
  Factory farming doesn’t just impact animals or land. It affects people, often those with the least say in the matter. Staying informed means listening to those stories and understanding the bigger picture.
• Talk about what you learn
  Change doesn’t always start with legislation. Sometimes it begins with a conversation over lunch, a post shared online, or a question asked at the grocery store. You don’t need to do everything, but doing something counts.

The Bigger Picture

Smithfield’s story reveals more than just how bacon is made. It exposes a system where scale outweighs ethics, and where decisions made behind boardroom doors ripple into the daily lives of families, farmers, and entire communities. From open-air waste pits to unchecked consolidation, it’s not just the environment or the economy that’s affected — it’s people.

Foreign ownership adds another layer of complexity. While global trade isn’t inherently negative, the Smithfield case reminds us how easily control over essentials like food can shift without most consumers even noticing.

At the end of the day, the question isn’t just who owns Smithfield. It’s what kind of food system we’re supporting, and whether it reflects the kind of world we actually want to live in.