Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A federal jury decided Friday, Aug. 3, that the world's largest pork producer should pay $473.5 million to neighbors of three North Carolina industrial-scale hog farms for unreasonable nuisances they suffered from odors, flies and rumbling trucks.
The jury found that Smithfield Foods owes compensation to six neighbors who complained in their lawsuit that the company failed to stop "the obnoxious, recurrent odors and other causes of nuisance" resulting from closely packed hogs, which "generate many times more sewage than entire towns."
The jury awarded $23.5 million in compensatory damages and $450 million in punitive damages, which will be reduced to $94 million under limits in state law.
The case comes after two previous, related lawsuits rocked agribusiness in the country's No. 2 pork-producing state. Juries in those two cases awarded damages of about $75 million intended to punish Smithfield, though those amounts also were required to be cut.
North Carolina legislators reacted by adopting new barriers against nuisance lawsuits that all but eliminate the right of neighbors to sue Smithfield Foods or any other agribusiness. Critics billed the legislation as an attack on private property rights in order to protect a well-heeled industry.
U.S. Sen Thom Tillis and U.S. Rep. David Rouzer suggested they might seek national legislation after hearing Friday from agribusiness executives and agriculture officials from North Carolina, Georgia, Delaware and Texas in Raleigh.
"Today's nuisance lawsuits that are destroying livelihoods and communities in North Carolina are the tip of the iceberg for what is to come absent a well-informed public and good public policy," Rouzer said in a prepared statement Thursday. "This is a very slippery slope that threatens the very existence of every form of agriculture nationwide."
"if you don't want to smell pigs then don't move in next to a pig farmer".... It's not always the case that the home owner moves in next to a hog CAFO, sometimes they are peacefully enjoying a rural lifestyle on a 5-10 acre home site, that happens to abut a grain farm.....that sometime later decides to change to a CAFO.
It shouldn't just be about who was there first....it should be what is considered safe/healthy for the environment and all land owners/neighbors, as well as being a proper steward of the land.
Here is an interactive map of CAFO's (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) in NC. Do some poking around to see just how many there are in NC, and how many are located in a flood plain. Then look, by county, at how many thousands/millions of gallons of hog waste are sprayed on/injected into the soil. That is the source of much of the offensive odor.
Regards
Gemstone1
Last edited by gemstone1; 08-04-2018 at 01:04 PM..
I’m from bladen county in the center of SE NC these are highly automated operations run by a few consolidated landlord farmers the tiny violin stories are total garbage and most of the workers are Mexicans
They stink like **** and enviornmentally we would be better without our lagoons and farming
"Quantify these terms. You know very well that your implied scenario is almost fantasy"....just as your statement that assumes people are willingly/knowingly moving next to a CAFO.
No, I contend that as city people yearn for a slower country lifestyle, they move to the country looking for that perfect place to raise a family, maybe with room for a horse, place for their dog to run, kids to play safely outside. They think they've done their research, but not to the extent they should have.... they did not investigate whether a CAFO is allowed under the current agriculture zoning regulations....perhaps they had no clue what a CAFO even was....all they knew was they wanted to get out of the city.
All is good for a couple of years....until the adjoining/local farm is sold to a conglomerate....a conglomerate that is mandated by shareholders to maximize their return on investment. Before they realize it, a CAFO is born, quality of live for residents goes down, first by construction of the CAFO, next by the population of animals, and the constant traffic on country roads by feed trucks and livestock trucks. Then the manure lagoon fills up, the spraying of manure on the fields begins, and now the unsuspecting residents know exactly what a CAFO is, and what it has done to their dream of life in the country. So, now they voice their concern....and learn that their elected officials have tied their hands by passing regulations favoring big business and the dollars they contribute to their campaigns.
We all know how politics works.....the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Until the little guy gains a collective loud voice, the loudest wheel will continue to be big business.
....just as your statement that assumes people are willingly/knowingly moving next to a CAFO.
Nope. Earnestly... but uninformedly and as a consequence foolishly.
Conditions that those who can afford that gentlemen farmers don't get a pass on.
Quote:
...they move to the country looking for that perfect place to raise a family, maybe with room for a horse,
place for their dog to run, kids to play safely outside. They think they've done their research, but not to the extent they should have....
There ya go. Due diligence caveat emptor etc.
It's not like the area isn't long known for pork. Right?
8 of the top 50 pork counties in the US are in NC Link
Quote:
...and learn that their elected officials have tied their hands ...
If you want to shift responsibility for due diligence and the rest...
well, once past the new buyer and his attorneys/advisors etc...
the next first step is the property sellers and RE agents tied to the location of their purchase.
Last edited by MrRational; 08-05-2018 at 09:05 AM..
It shouldn't just be about who was there first....it should be what is considered safe/healthy for the environment and all land owners/neighbors, as well as being a proper steward of the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by take57
Economics 101: It's less expensive to buy politicians than mitigate the source of the problem.
Two thumbs up
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
