Smithfield Lobby Firm Amended Filing to Say They Represent a Foreign Interest Only After Watchdog Complained

Smithfield Foods’ lobbying record includes an Aug. 18 amendment identifying its CCP-linked parent company, WH Group, as having an interest in livestock treatment and farmland-ownership policy. A later Sept. 3 amendment no longer lists WH Group on Line 19, leaving competing versions after an earlier filing said no foreign interest was connected to the company.

Greenberg Traurig, Smithfield’s lobby firm, filed the pork producer’s original second-quarter report July 20. It listed Farm Bill reauthorization and foreign ownership of agricultural land as issues discussed with the House, Senate and Treasury Department, and reported $120,000 in lobbying income. Both activity pages listed “None” when asked to identify each foreign entity’s interest.

That conflicted with Greenberg Traurig’s registration for Smithfield, filed June 10 and effective May 1. The registration identified WH Group, based in Hong Kong, as owning 86.9% of Smithfield and listed foreign ownership of agricultural land as an anticipated issue.

The Center for Responsible Food Business filed a complaint Aug. 3, alleging apparent noncompliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act. On Aug. 18, Greenberg Traurig amended the report. It kept the same income and issues but named WH Group on Line 19 for both activity pages in the amended filing. Greenberg Traurig filed a second amendment Sept. 3. That version kept the $120,000 income figure and the same lobbying issues but did not list a foreign entity on Line 19 on either page.

Smithfield’s annual report says WH Group owns about 87% of Smithfield’s shares as of March 24, 2026. It also states that laws targeting foreign ownership of land or facilities could affect the company. Smithfield owns 87,000 U.S. acres that include production, processing and distribution facilities.

WH Group’s Documented Ties to Chinese State Institutions and CCP-Connected Leadership

WH Group’s relationship to China’s political system goes beyond its corporate address in Hong Kong. A 2022 report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) said Shuanghui, later renamed WH Group, was founded in 1958 by a municipal government in Henan Province, China. The report said the 2013 Smithfield acquisition had Chinese government backing and that the state-owned Bank of China provided about $4 billion in financing. It also said the deal gave WH Group access to Smithfield’s U.S. farms, production system and hog genetics.

The commission also cited testimony that longtime WH Group chairman Wan Long spent more than 15 years as a member of China’s National People’s Congress. The report said Wan’s links to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) played an important role in the Smithfield acquisition. The report states:

“Shuanghui was founded in 1958 by a municipal government in Henan Province.97 WH Group’s longtime chairman, Wan Long, joined the plant ten years later and was general manager by 1984. Wan Long grew the company from a small and struggling single processing plant into China’s largest food processor by 2006.98 As Usha Haley noted in her testimony before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in 2013, Wan Long spent more than 15 years as a member of China’s National People’s Congress.99 Wan Long’s links to the CCP provided him the support Shuanghui needed to acquire Smithfield. The Chinese government stood to benefit from Smithfield’s established reputation globally and record on food safety, both areas where Shuanghui struggled. Additionally, the U.S. company’s advanced hog genetics and valuable technology were an undeniable draw for China, which was looking to diversify its agricultural supply chain and increase the yield of its herds.”

Smithfield’s Position on California’s Proposition 12

California voters approved Proposition 12 in 2018. The law requires minimum space for breeding pigs, veal calves and egg-laying hens. It also bars California businesses from selling covered products from animals raised under conditions that fail to meet those standards. For breeding pigs, the standard requires 24 square feet of usable floor space, giving consumers a way to avoid products from animals raised under poor conditions.

Smithfield has also been accused of continuing to confine pregnant sows in gestation crates, metal enclosures that restrict a pig’s movement, during part of the breeding cycle. In a 2021 lawsuit, the Humane Society of the United States alleged that Smithfield’s group-housing program did not eliminate crate confinement but reduced the amount of time sows spent in individual crates.

The lawsuit ended in January 2025 after Smithfield revised its marketing and investor reports to acknowledge that sows remain in gestation crates for four to six weeks during each breeding cycle. The case was resolved without a trial. The company did not disclose any payment, admission of wrongdoing, or agreement to eliminate gestation crates.

Smithfield supplies pork that meets California’s standards while backing federal legislation that would prevent states from imposing different production rules on agricultural products sold across state lines. In 2023, Smithfield spokesman Ray Atkinson told Agri-Pulse that the company “fully supports a federal legislative solution” to the growing state-by-state patchwork.

Smithfield representative Mike Diggs made a similar point in a 2026 Brownfield interview. He said producers need clear rules and that one state should not change requirements for farmers elsewhere. He also said lawmakers might address Proposition 12 through Farm Bill 2.0. In practical terms, Smithfield’s position favored replacing California’s humane conditions requirement with a federal standard that would be less stringent.

Questions Left by the Amended Filing

Lobbying reports show who stands behind an advocacy effort and what interests may be affected. They do not bar foreign-owned companies from participating in policy debates. The Aug. 18 Line 19 change identified Smithfield’s foreign ownership but left unanswered why the original filing listed no foreign interest. The Sept. 3 amendment adds another unanswered question: Why did the later filing no longer list WH Group on Line 19?

Why did the original report omit foreign interest despite Smithfield’s ownership by a Chinese company?

The public record shows that Greenberg Traurig amended Line 19 after CRFB filed its complaint Aug. 3 and after the Senate Agriculture Committee voted Aug. 6 on whether to advance Farm Bill 2.0. The Aug. 18 version named WH Group; the Sept. 3 version, again, did not.

The bill failed to advance from committee.