U.S. chicken prices may have been artificially inflated for years

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/17/internal-document-supports-argument-that-u-s-chicken-prices-have-been-artificially-inflated-for-years/

by endswapper • 10 years ago

240 151 10 years ago

washingtonpost.com

angersock• 10 years ago

Authorities suspect fowl play in the bookkeeping, but companies refuse to apollogize.

nanodeath• 10 years ago

Well I appreciated the puns...

tim333• 10 years ago

The regulators are probably just chicken.

AlexB138• 10 years ago

Seriously? We're getting the reddit-level pun threads now?

et-al• 10 years ago

Yes. Let's refrain from one-line puns.

I'd hate to open a HN thread in the near-future only to have the top-rated comments be puns. Good, on-topic forums are as rare as hens teeth these days.

forrestbrazeal• 10 years ago

In fact, U.S. chickens themselves have been artificially inflated for years. Yum.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/06/10/artificially-fattene...

neffy2• 10 years ago

You had to quote fox news for that didn't you?! You just had to...

emodendroket4• 10 years ago

If anything, I'd say a report from Fox News about a business doing something questionable is more reliable.

bexp• 10 years ago

similar to healthcare and education

klodolph• 10 years ago

I also find it interesting how much of a premium white meat commands at the grocery store. $10 might get me 1 lb (450 g) boneless chicken breast, or 3 lb (1400 g) boneless chicken thigh. Since one chicken produces slightly less thigh meat than breast meat, I can only assume that there is a huge disparity in demand.

I'm not complaining—I get the meat I prefer for a good price that way.

(Edit: To be clear, U.S.)

(Edit 2: I think I misremembered the prices: might have been 3 lb / 9 lb instead of 1 lb / 3 lb.)

maxerickson3• 10 years ago

Breasts go below $3 here. Boneless thighs below $2.

That's at Walmart, but that's where an awful lot of Americans are buying some of their chicken.

sethd• 10 years ago

The inverse is true in Vietnam (not sure about elsewhere in SE Asia), where they consider the breasts to be the most undesirable part of the chicken.

jandrese• 10 years ago

It's a health thing. People have been taught that the dark meat is full of fat and the light meat is healthier.

It's kind of like choosing a Coke instead of a Mountain Dew for health reasons.

rbobby• 10 years ago

My Korean friend had the same attitude (and claimed it was common in Korea). After several "correctly" cooked chicken breasts he changed his attitude.

Breast meat takes far less heat/time to cook than the rest of the chicken (comparatively) making it very easy to over cook. Rubbery chicken breast is much less appetizing than chicken thighs (etc).

Also beast meat in stew/soup is difficult (impossible?) to do right (so so easy to end up rubbery). But thighs in a stew are perfectly fine (can't really overcook).

Alex3917• 10 years ago

Even fresh whole squids are only $5-6 a pound. I'm guessing 95% of U.S. food consumption patterns are determined by people being too lazy or dumb to spend thirty seconds googling for how to prepare basic food items.

rtkwe• 10 years ago

$10/lb for chicken breast is really high. I can get unpacked chicken breast for ~2 dollars a pound or the packaged Perdue breasts for 6.

bpicolo• 10 years ago

In Berkeley I was getting squid for like $2/lb. It was great.

jonathankoren2• 10 years ago

That's simple supply and demand. American customers prefer white meat because it's lower in calories, and therefore viewed as healthier. It's also considered better for people on a low cholesterol diet. Outside the US, a higher premium is placed on taste, and so dark meat is preferred.

fencepost2• 10 years ago

This does vary somewhat - when chicken thighs became a more trendy ingredient a few years ago prices for chicken thighs rose pretty dramatically. I mostly noticed because I was semi-regularly making a very simple slow-cooker chicken chili that used boneless skinless chicken thighs.

Also, where in the US are you paying $10/pound for chicken breast? In the Chicago area even "boutique" organic boneless/skinless chicken breast is seldom above $6/pound, regular full-price conventional chicken breast is typically $3-4 depending on where you shop, and B/S breast is often on sale for at or below $2/pound (rarely below $1.49/pound).

DaveInTucson• 10 years ago

Perhaps OP was referring to the pre-cooked chicken available at the deli counter? That's typically a lot more expensive than buying it raw.

cheald• 10 years ago

$10/lb seems insane to me. I routinely pay $2/lb for mine at Costco ($20 for a 10lb bag of frozen boneless/skinless chicken breast).

wil421• 10 years ago

Even at Whole Foods the air cooled chick breast are rarely over 6.99 a pound and it seems like the norm for "boutique" chicken.

I think I got bone in breasts for around $3.79 a pound at publix this week.

Spooky234• 10 years ago

I'm in upstate ny.

Small packages of chicken breast are typically $7/lb. Large packages at a wholesale club are $3/lb for Perdue, $2/lb for the mystery brand. Whole Foods is much higher.

We have a supermarket oligopoly that keeps prices high, I noticed supermarket prices in a few NYC stores were in line with warehouse clubs at home.

jgmmo• 10 years ago

Oregon checking in.

Usually prices are:

(boneless/skinless) breast - $1.99/lb

(boneless/skinless) thighs - $2.29/lb

On sale, they are sub $2 a pound, like $1.69. This is at Fred Meyers, quality chicken - that I can tell you.

Who in the hell would pay ten bucks for a pound of chicken, I'd switch to salmon fulltime at that rate.

cmdrfred• 10 years ago

Lobster prices are considered high when they wholesale for $10 a pound.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/17/lobster-prices-are-getting-wi...

chasebank• 10 years ago

Santa Barbara - $4.99-11.99/lb for chicken breast. I imagine real estate has a lot to do with pricing.

novia• 10 years ago

I was going to post that the price of dark meat is actually inflated because we export it to Russia and other countries, it could be even cheaper! But then I saw this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2011/01/the_dark_sid... which says that Russia is not importing as much of our chicken. Good! I prefer dark meat and I want it to be as cheap as possible for me in the US.

mattmcknight• 10 years ago

$11.99/lb at Harris Teeter for my locality. Thighs are $7.99.

http://grocery.harristeeter.com/pd/Smart-Chicken/Organic-Bon...

LeifCarrotson2• 10 years ago

Those are some overpriced organic ones, though. While a valid choice, they're not representative of the norm.

That grocer has regular breasts at $3.99/lb:

http://grocery.harristeeter.com/pd/Harris-Teeter/Chicken-Bre...

or thighs at $3.49.

icpmacdo• 10 years ago

I too get the meat I prefer ever since I found this recipe,

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyhorng/travel-to-new-york-city-...

I never realized how much more flavour your able to get out of chicken thighs. I highly recommend it!

emodendroket4• 10 years ago

There is a huge disparity in demand due to the perceived health benefits (which I think are essentially illusory). They used to ship unwanted dark meat to Russia but now they've gotten a taste for white meat as well.

douche• 10 years ago

It's not uncommon to see thighs on sale for prices as low as $.79/pound, in my experience. There is more waste, with the skin, gristle and bone, compared to boneless breasts, but still.

The one that gets me is that you can often get boneless pork chops or loins for around $2/pound. Even the cheaper chuck cuts of beef that I like are usually double or triple the cost of pork.

xherberta2• 10 years ago

Maybe klodolph is talking about fresh while some others are reporting on frozen.

Here where I am, Ordinary chicken breast is $6-8 /lb. Organic breasts: $8-10 /lb. Frozen breasts can be $2.50-4 /lb.

I prefer to get misery-free local chickens whole for $4.50 /lb. Then I can make stock. Yum!

maxerickson3• 10 years ago

I was talking about fresh.

The prices I mentioned are the typical prices for larger packages, not a special or whatever.

zhte4152• 10 years ago

Price of 'commodity chicken' is largely set internationally, as has fascinating disparities, especially due to cross-pacific preferences.

An example is chicken feet. Around 300,000 tons of chicken feet are exported from the US mainly China, as a lot of Chinese cuisine has ways to cook these into something tasty. Think about how little chicken feet weigh, and how many make up a ton. That's a lot of feet. Necks too.

The contrast in prices for chicken breast and chicken wings seems most stark. Chicken wings are popular all over the world, but breast mainly in the Anglo world (US, US, AU, CA, NZ) and some of Europe. China doesn't have much frontness for breast. Here, chicken wings retail for 4 times the price of breast (wings about USD6 per kilo and breast USD1.5 per kilo) despite breasts being bone/skin free - commodity, non-brand chicken, a price disparity that is surely a function of cost of arbitrage (shipping and refrigeration). These are retail prices, largely frozen or pre-frozen.

I prefer a free range bird, chicken, duck, pheasant, from the farmyard. As in friend's parent's farm in the countryside. These go at a huge premium to factory stuff, but are also much longer lived and much tastier. Around USD 15-20 per bird depending on size and type.

Edit: Article on chicken and ratio of wing to breast prices http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/09/the-economics-of-chicken-...

robbies• 10 years ago

...a lot of Chinese cuisine has ways to cook these into something tasty.

Not exactly. They just like chicken feet. Cultural palate. You can go to a dim sum place (if you have one available in your US town) and get dim sum. If you don't like them already, pretty good chance you won't like them off the cart.

feld• 10 years ago

I get chicken (leg quarters) for .39 a pound regularly.

Normal grocery store prices are insane.

knieveltech3• 10 years ago

This implies you do not buy your chicken from a "normal" grocery store. If that is the case, where are you buying your chicken?

fencepost2• 10 years ago

The two places that jump out at me as possibilities would be restaurant supply places (for example, Gordon Food Service has storefronts in my area though I don't believe they actually sell to the general public) or "ethnic" markets - often small-chain grocers often listed as "produce" or "carniceria" though they are often full service groceries.

ska• 10 years ago

What's wrong with "Trust, but verify" ?

desireco422• 10 years ago

Like chicken meat is not cheap already.

maxerickson3• 10 years ago

There are an awful lot of people that would love to eat 20% more chicken.

knieveltech3• 10 years ago

Meat in general is expensive these days. Chicken has traditionally been a low-cost alternative to beef but in recent years the price has come closer to parity with ground beef.

jonathankoren2• 10 years ago

I don't know where you get that idea. The prices of turkey and pork have remained stable, while the price of beef has declined . It's chicken that has raised in price.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/10/the-c...

desireco422• 10 years ago

I see. What I was saying, that overall price of meat is really low and accessible and this stimulates overconsumption.

reverend_gonzo• 10 years ago

And this is precisely why chickens should be traded on an exchange. It becomes much harder for a person or small group (as in this case) to corner a market and raise prices.

However, here's a good article about why there is no trading in chickens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/10/the-c...

Looks like the market has been generally fairly stable and dominated by big players, so there hasn't been a need for producers and consumers to hedge their prices, and therefore a futures market was never formed.

ethagknight2• 10 years ago

So what, then, has prevented new startup chicken ranchers from popping up all over the US to capitalize on the overpricing?

TheSockStealer• 10 years ago

I assume (not knowing anything about the industry), is that there is a ton of capital required to enter the market. Combine that with a substantial amount of regulation and it is a difficult market to get into. Besides, even if you did join, you are better off selling at the "monopoly" price even if you don't sell all of your product.

d0lph• 10 years ago

Except you would sell more if you were undercutting the competition pricewise.

ethagknight2• 10 years ago

Well of course you sell at the monopoly price, thats why you entered the market in the first place. I would not think the capital would be particularly outsized compared to similar venture.

bduerst• 10 years ago

Can confirm on the regulatory aspect - factory farms are terribly difficult to get cities to approve zoning for.

jlarocco• 10 years ago

Easier said than done.

If a group of big players are keeping the price high artificially then it will be easy for them to drop the price until the "startup chicken ranchers" go out of business. I'm sure there are economies of scale involved, and they can probably drop to the true market price while still keeping a better profit margin than the startup chicken farmers.

emodendroket4• 10 years ago

Huge economies of scale, existing relationships, need for a lot of startup capital, likely local resistance to establishing a meat-packing plant, etc.

st3v3r3• 10 years ago

Cause startups are not the answer to everything. Find me a VC who's willing to invest in a chicken ranch, and maybe I'll change my tone.

randomdata5• 10 years ago

The Buffett family (yes, that Buffett family) is big into farming. While grain seems to be more up their ally, operating several thousand acres of corn and soybeans, expansion may be appealing to them. Warren's grandson's VC firm is known to invest in progressive agriculture-related businesses. If the right opportunity arrived, I don't see why they wouldn't take up the opportunity.

And if we are willing to be lenient on what VC means, Warren's son is known to have invested in chicken ranches for humanitarian reasons.

coldtea6• 10 years ago

So what, then, has prevented new startup chicken ranchers from popping up all over the US to capitalize on the overpricing?

Capitalism. Which is less about "free trade" and disruption, and more about big players securing any niche for themselves as best as they can (government regulations not required for that either -- they can also do it with buying out smaller competitors to prevent disruption, dividing the market between themselves and forging cartels, playing retailers against one another and taking advantage of their economies of scale, undercutting on price while smaller competitors die and then jacking it, etc).

jackmoore• 10 years ago

“We trust the companies we work with,” Alec Asbridge, director of regulatory compliance at Georgia Department of Agriculture, said earlier this month. “We don’t see any reason they would submit information that wasn’t truthful.”

I feel like this statement makes Asbridge unsuited for his job as director of regulatory compliance. Willful obliviousness implies a conflict of interest.

vermontdevil• 10 years ago

He must think everyone else is an idiot when he talks like this.

oxide• 10 years ago

If it isn't willful obliviousness, at the very least, it is blatant incompetence.

philipodonnell• 10 years ago

I don't think you have to call it willful. By his own hand he wrote:

“My training was inadequate, inconsistent and sometimes in error,” Schronce wrote of his preparation for calculating the Georgia Dock.

lsaferite• 10 years ago

That quote is not from the same person.

squozzer• 10 years ago

Mr. Asbridge, have you ever heard of money? If not, do you know what the numbers on your paycheck mean?

ak4g• 10 years ago

Uh, this makes no sesne to me. He's speaking specifically about the numbers reported for the Georgia Dock, which, from the reporting in this article, could very easily be completely legitimate. You seem to be interpreting his statement as applying to everything under his job description as director of regulatory compliance.

I did not read his statement as a blanket statement; it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would until I saw your comment. As a matter of fact, the 2nd sentence seems to explicitly preclude that interpretation.

cgvgffyv3• 10 years ago

I did not read his statement as a blanket statement; it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would until I saw your comment.

You haven't been on the internet much have you?

Get out before it sucks all the optimism out of you and replaces it with cynicism.

I feel it's a non-reversible process.

jobu• 10 years ago

It sounds like they're only talking to chicken producers, and the producers have a pretty obvious incentive to lie to regulators if it increases the price they get for chicken.

An easy fix would be to contact retailers like Walmart or Kroger to see what they're paying for chicken. Hopefully the liars would offset and end up closer to the truth.

bjterry• 10 years ago

The entire article provides reasons why the companies are incentivized to inflate the prices, because those prices are used in contracts which affect them. Asbridge is either not aware of this aspect of the incentives in his industry, which would imply incompetence (whether this is a minor incompetence or a gross incompetence, I don't have the knowledge to say), or he's not speaking carefully. He might actually think that the companies don't have a GOOD reason to provide false figures, but not that they don't have ANY reason. If he's not speaking carefully, then he may be specifically minimizing concerns about the figures to the benefit of the industry he's regulating.

Since he's a political actor, and we know that regulatory capture exists, this could call into question whether it's appropriate for him to continue being a regulator. That's the argument.

manarth• 10 years ago

  We don’t see any reason they would submit information that wasn’t truthful

This statement seems excessively naive for a Director of Regulatory Compliance.

It's one thing to suggest that in general, the companies are believed to be honest. That's a fairly reasonable statement.

It's another thing to be blind to the benefits of giving untruthful information. If all companies were honest and compliant, there would be no need for a Director of Regulatory Compliance.

wnevets• 10 years ago

Didn't you know jobs are more important than regulations?

dimino• 10 years ago

Even like a, "Trust but verify" attitude here would be more appropriate.

Like, sure, I get it, it's easier to work with companies if you demonstrate a trusting relationship, but you're in an adversarial position by the nature of your job, the companies should feel a little uncomfortable around you.

FatAmericanDev• 10 years ago

Google strawman, that may apply to you.

necessity• 10 years ago

Next time, the right bureaucrat will be in charge!

Spooky234• 10 years ago

This is classic red state governance.

Strip the organization of resources over time, put politically appointed people in charge of work that should be performed by civil servants, and create a situation where the inmates run the asylum.

Even if nobody applies pressure, there's an implied threat of reprisal when the an appointed former garden blogger turned director of whatever gives an undesired answer. That job should be a civil service gig protected from direct reprisal.

Compare this ridiculous methodology compared to something more robust like the CPI calculations performed by the US DOL.

rayiner2• 10 years ago

Yeah, Georgia, what a shit hole. With its triple-AAA bond rating, below-average debt per capita, and solvent pension system!

bzbarsky• 10 years ago

This is classic governance in general, not just red state governance.

WillPostForFood2• 10 years ago

From 1872 to 2002 Georgia elected 37 Democrat Governors in a row. The Georgia dock chicken pricing goes back at least 56 years. So you might as well call it classic blue state governance.

seesomesense2• 10 years ago

"This is classic red state governance."

Not everything in this world requires knee-jerk political name calling.

grzm4• 10 years ago

As I read the article, the influence the industry has over prices is definitely a big problem, as are some of the statements of those in government defending the accuracy of the prices and basically covering themselves. The government officials sound like sadly typical "everything's fine, we're looking into it" language.

Not knowing the broader GA situation, can you shed light on "strip the organization of resources over time"? I don't see that in the article. It does sound like he could have used more support, but that can be the case in many jobs, in industry or government.

From what I see, Schronce has been a civil servant since October 1996.

PDF: http://atlantacityga.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&...

Oct 1996 - August 2014 Director of Public Affairs, GA Dept of Agriculture

August 2014 - Marketing Representative for Municipal Market Board for City of Atlanta

I wasn't able to fill in the gap between working for the Municipal Market Board and returning to the Dept of Agriculture.

His blog was part of the Dept of Agriculture website. Describing the situation as "former garden blogger turned director of whatever" is an unfair characterization of the situation. I don't see in the article whether the Director of Public Affairs is an appointed position or not, nor could I find information about that online. He has a background in agriculture, a horticulture graduate of North Carolina State University. If it was an appointment, it doesn't appear to be purely political.

http://agr.georgia.gov/artys-garden.aspx

I also don't see an indication from the article that he was worried about reprisal. I agree it's important to shield regulators to let them do their jobs as free of influence as possible.

He did write a memo, raising the issue. With the light that's now been cast on the situation, hopefully it'll get fixed. No system is perfect. What makes a difference is whether it gets fixed now that the issue is known.

The particulars of the Georgia Dock aside, how does this compare with other states, red, blue, or purple?

rhizome• 10 years ago

He's hiding behind a negative proof.

einrealist• 10 years ago

Hacker News and chicken problems.... ;)

jscipione• 10 years ago

"may"

korethr• 10 years ago

So unless I am misunderstanding the article, the prices on the Georgia Dock are based on the prices reported by the chicken companies. The prices on the Georgia Dock are then used by the grocery stores to negotiate their prices with the chicken companies.

Would not those negotiated prices then affect the prices that get reported to the Georgia Dock? Am I missing something that prevents this from becoming a circular dependency?

pessimizer• 10 years ago

Another LIBOR-style scandal. This asking for an unverifiable number from people with an interest in that number being high is an ideal vehicle for collusion. If yesterday's average turned out to be higher than the number you reported yesterday, just up your number to the average. If you feel the market can bear a price rise, just up your number well above the average for a time and see if everyone follows, then lower your number the closer the average gets to your ideal number. The only risk you take is that to push the average up enough that others adjust, you take the risk of reporting a price high enough to attract attention - but if companies trade off on leading the charge, it just looks like a high variance. Each supplier has a different set of contract relationships, so any short-term variance could be rationalized.

In the end, it works out like a perfect continuous democratic system for price-fixing.

Scoundreller• 10 years ago

LIBOR-style indeed.

What's wrong with market based prices?

The other issue with LIBOR is that it fails to take into account the volume that a supplier can move. Taking the average/median of a number of suppliers that are willing to sell one chicken doesn't say much.

bboreham• 10 years ago

What's wrong with market based prices?

Both LIBOR and this chicken price are _supposed_ to be market-based; however the price negotiations are all confidential. An alternative is to mandate total visibility of all bids and offers, as is generally done in equity markets. This brings its own distortions: you have to pay people to operate the public venue; it enforces a bid-offer spread. And many people don't like regulations forcing them to do business a certain way.

PretzelPirate• 10 years ago

With government subsidies, you might say that the cost of chicken has been artificially kept low.

lallysingh• 10 years ago

Or the subsidy's been applied to the vendor as pure profit, instead of reducing the market rate.

m23khan• 10 years ago

I also find prices of gasoline highly inflated as well as price of dry fruits and beef.

sorenjan• 10 years ago

Isn't American chickens treated horribly and living in awful conditions to drive the price down? If the price is inflated there should be economic room for better conditions instead.

grzm4• 10 years ago

It drives cost down.

price − cost = profit

xherberta2• 10 years ago

Right. I'm willing to PAY for better conditions for chicken. Who's with me?!

st3v3r3• 10 years ago

Should be, but then shareholders wouldn't get as fat of a dividend, and the board members might have to live with a 20' yacht instead of a 27' one.

coldtea6• 10 years ago

It's the same with GMO food. It's advertised as a way for cheaper food (that will "feed the world"), but instead it's mostly a way for higher margins (more profit) for the same inflated prices (besides the DRM/IP-like control on the seeds).

randomdata5• 10 years ago

How do you figure? We farmers spend most of our time not producing food, but sharpening our pencils. If the higher cost of the seed wasn't offset in other ways, we wouldn't consider using it in the first place. It has to pay. The grain business, where I operate, is so competitive that even a small amount of overspending will result in losing money. Do that too many times and you'll be out of business completely.

To add to that, the market requires quite a bit more for non-GMO food. Right now I can tell you that non-GMO soybeans carry a $2.50/bu. premium. That gives you a pretty good idea of how much more it costs to grow non-GMO food, at least as far as soybeans go, as that is what it is taking to attract farmers to consider growing those varieties. That is after factoring in DRM/IP-like costs.

randomdata5• 10 years ago

There may be room, but you still need a market demand. The chickens were pushed into awful living conditions because those were the chickens that people were buying.

novalis78• 10 years ago

...that will be a day when we see this headline regarding health care prices :-)

cnnsucks• 10 years ago

Tyson again. That name bubbles up to the top of the septic tank every few years. Tyson was one of several companies that paid millions to settle antitrust price fixing suits in the late 70's. Bill Clinton suppressed a water pollution problem for them when he was governor. One of Tyson's lawyers was the shepherd for Hillary's amazing cattle future windfall.

Our own fault really. We make reams of regulations with no accommodation for small competitors so being "To Big To Fail" becomes a requirement of doing business. Not surprisingly the resulting oligopoly quietly colludes amongst itself.

honkhonkpants• 10 years ago

So funny. The current right wing enthusiasts don't even mention the cattle futures thing, which is the only outright crooked thing you can really hang off Hillary Clinton. It's all Benghazi all the time these days but to me the Clintons have so much of the small-time corruption in their history.

h4nkoslo• 10 years ago

There is an immensely profitable niche finding regulatorily dictated pricing schemes like this, or LIBOR, or various other "one true commodity price" setups, and mercilessly arbitraging them.

sammcgrail• 10 years ago

Just like the chickens...

toomanybeersies• 10 years ago

I'm always amazed at how cheap meat (especially chicken) is in the USA. Here in New Zealand we pay over NZ$10 per kg (US$3 per lb).

And unlike our beef, which would understandably command a premium being grass fed (like they're supposed to), our chicken is made the same way as the USA, in cages.

At least we can get reasonably cheap pork shoulder, sometimes it's as low as $7 per kg (US$2.25 per lb). I can also get lamb chops for less than NZ$10 per kg (US$3 per lb).

moron4hire2• 10 years ago

These prices are actually in line with what we spend in the US

scythe2• 10 years ago

His prices for pounds are off because his math is wrong. $10/kg is actually $4.53/lb, not $3.

jpindar• 10 years ago

Meanwhile, the high beef prices of the last few years, which as far as I know were due to an actual shortage, have gone back down. I'm glad, I was expecting they were going to stay at the higher prices forever.

seesomesense2• 10 years ago

Multi-billion dollar class action suits, incoming...

Hondor• 10 years ago

Americans should love this. Artificially inflated food prices are what tariffs and a lack of trade agreements are for. That causes local consumers to pay more to support local producers rather than paying a fair international price. How can someone complain about this article's kind of cheating and at the same time want to restrict cheap imports - which has the same effect of artificially inflating prices?

disposablezero• 10 years ago

So has the prices of cane sugar, but not corn and soybeans.

MrQuincle• 10 years ago

The prices are artificially set anyway.

I don't think animal friendly practices, environmental issues, waste, health-care (antibiotics), etc. is factored in.

paulus_magnus2• 10 years ago

Aren't all prices "inflated"?? Therefore inflated = market price = fair price. Capitalism

tunap• 10 years ago

An article on artificially inflated chicken prices and no mention of the water scams? Perhaps the purpose of the article has a political objective besides commodity prices.

matthewmcg• 10 years ago

At least superficially, this seems to be "LIBOR fixing, but for chicken."

There's a price index that was created for informational purposes but gradually becomes more financially consequential as it is written into big commercial contracts. Finally, it's revealed that one or more players are submitted self-serving information.

tripzilch• 10 years ago

how is this relevant to HN?

U.S. chicken prices may have been artificially inflated for years

Related Stories