Smithfield Deal Gives China Access to Food Tech

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


July 10 (Bloomberg) -- China could use Smithfield’s food technology to compete with the U.S. in other markets such as Japan, says Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan. She spoke with Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television's "Lunch Money." (Source: Bloomberg)

-- betty staton debbie stabinow.

She and the ceo of smithfield foods will be making the argument for why this is in america's interests, for sure, and shareholder interests as well.

She has real concerns about national security and food security, specifically.

She wants an interagency group of regulators to weigh in.

She told regulators that she has concerns about what this will mean, competitively, and is also not that worried about any accusation that the u.s. is closed for business.

You could not do this deal in china.

This is a level playing field, in a huge proponent of these markets.

We do not have a problem with open markets.

China has a problem of open markets and that raises a lot of issues for us.

The chairwoman of the senate agricultural committee, one of the more powerful players on the hill on this issue.

The fact that she is raising questions on this deal is a risk for a going forward, raising questions, she hopes to have them answered today.

I am a little bit confused about the whole food safety debate.

Can you give us more details?

Smithfield pause manufacturing operations are in the u.s.. there is high demand in china.

It does not sound like as part of this deal you would have chinese meat coming into the u.s. food supply.

You are right.

And smithfield has made that point.

This is not ultimately about china exporting to the united states, but she makes the case that this would be a precedent setting transaction for future transactions, that that would not be the case, she wants to make sure that this deal is scrutinized in that way and that future deals like this would get the same kind of scrutiny.

She also raised the question about whether the law needs to be changed going forward.

It may be a good deal going forward, but she wants more information on what is likely to increase as the companies do more business together.

Quickly here, even if she raises these questions, what does it mean on the hill about whether ultimately this will be approved?

Is this still an open question or is the idea that she will ask tough questions and then the rubber stamp will come?

The idea i am getting is that this deal is going to go forward.

There may be some conditions along the line, but it is hard to argue this transaction would ultimately compromise u.s. national security.

We are talking about pork and bacon, as you pointed out.

With some conditions attached, it could be so onerous that they may decide it is not in their interests.

That would be the real question on capitol hill going forward.

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change