Why You Can Barely Afford Eggs Right Now, According to Experts
Egg prices are soaring across the country.
There are several reasons why they're so expensive right now.
Experts say it could be a while until things level off.
It's hard to miss the bare shelves in the refrigerator section at your local grocery store where eggs used to be. Even if your store happens to have eggs in stock, prices are astronomical right now.
While prices vary across the country, the United States Department of Agriculture has clear data that show a meteoric rise in price during the month of December. Wholesale prices (i.e. what the store pays purveyors) in New York, for example, jumped 52 cents to $7.24 per dozen. In California, that increased 72 cents to $8.76 per dozen. That's on top of prices that had already jumped up. And, unfortunately, they continue to rise.
Meet the experts: Richard Blatchford, Ph.D., a poultry researcher and associate specialist in Cooperative Extension: Small to Industry Scale Poultry at the UC Davis Department of Animal Science; Jonathan Moyle, Ph.D., poultry expert and extension specialist at the University of Maryland College of Agriculture & Natural Resources; says James K. Yarborough, extension agent of agriculture and natural resources at the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences; Darin Detwiler, L.P.D., author of the book Food Safety: Past, Present, and Predictions and a professor at Northeastern University
If you're a regular egg-eater, those prices are a big deal. So, what's behind this and, more importantly, when will those prices go back down? Here's exactly why egg prices have gotten so high.
There are a lot of nuances to this—and it's not just an egg recall here and there that's causing the issue.
Bird flu is to blame, says Richard Blatchford, Ph.D., a poultry researcher and associate specialist in Cooperative Extension: Small to Industry Scale Poultry at the UC Davis Department of Animal Science.
The H5N1 avian flu outbreak hasn't just taken out a few flocks of egg-laying hens here and there—it's obliterated them across the country.
More than 20 million egg-laying hens died in the last quarter from bird flu, either directly or from being culled (i.e. selective slaughter after the virus got into a flock). Data from the USDA also show that 13 million commercial and backyard flocks have been impacted by bird flu in the past month. That's a lot of birds. 'Avian flu has been decimating the flocks,' says Jonathan Moyle, Ph.D., poultry expert and extension specialist at the University of Maryland College of Agriculture & Natural Resources.
Unfortunately, flock owners can't just swap in new egg-laying birds immediately. 'You have to get chicks hatched, but that process is a little more complex that it sounds,' Blatchford says. 'Most egg producers have their plan for the next couple of years out. They have to balance when flocks are going out of production and bringing new birds in.'
Blatchford says it's also hard to just go to a breeder and say you so need a bunch of birds. 'Once you do get them hatched, you have to wait about 18 to 20 weeks for them to become sexually mature and start laying eggs,' he says.
That means there is more premium pricing on the eggs that are going into circulation—and egg producers are having to shell out more to replace the birds they've lost.
Cage-free hens are able to roam around, which is considered more humane than keeping chickens in cages. Some states have even mandated that egg producers have cage-free hens, Moyle says. 'But cage-free is not as efficient for egg-laying,' Moyle says. 'You're getting less that way.'
Cage-free eggs also tend to be more expensive to purchase, he points out.
While egg producers are trying to replace impacted flocks, bird flu is still a threat. Meaning, farmers could replace a flock and have them get infected all over again, leading to even more issues—and cost.
'It's difficult to gauge when this issue will be resolved,' says James K. Yarborough, extension agent of agriculture and natural resources at the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 'Since the virus is so far spread and we can't directly control wild birds, it's a challenge to control the illness.'
It's not clear. Again, bird flu continues to spread in flocks across the country, making it hard for egg producers to get ahead. With all of the other issues facing producers, Moyle says we're likely to face egg shortages and high prices for the foreseeable future. 'There's no idea when this will be under control,' he says.
Can you get bird flu from eggs?
It's unlikely. 'The risk of catching bird flu, such as H5N1 avian influenza, from eating contaminated eggs is considered low, especially if the eggs are properly cooked,' says Darin Detwiler, L.P.D., author of the book Food Safety: Past, Present, and Predictions and a professor at Northeastern University.
That's also true of handling eggs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Government officials have put very strict surveillance in place for egg-laying hens across the U.S., making it very likely that infected poultry or eggs will be detected quickly.
'Avian influenza viruses are primarily spread through direct contact with infected birds, their droppings, or contaminated environments, rather than through the consumption of poultry products, including eggs,' Detwiler says.
You Might Also Like
Can Apple Cider Vinegar Lead to Weight Loss?
Bobbi Brown Shares Her Top Face-Transforming Makeup Tips for Women Over 50
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Are egg prices falling in Texas? Here's how much a dozen costs in June 2025
Your wallet might get a little break at the grocery store. According to the average price of a dozen eggs is $4.26. The average has been the lowest it has been since its March peak of $6.23, according to a report published on June 3 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. According to the USDA, retail prices tend to follow wholesale prices with a delay due to several factors. 'Retail egg prices are influenced by wholesale egg prices, but additional factors such as pricing strategies and contracts can mute the impact of short-term fluctuations,' the USDA report said. 'As a result, retail price movements tend to lag directional changes made by wholesale prices. When wholesale prices spike, retailers occasionally and temporarily have sold eggs at a loss. As wholesale prices retreat, retail prices are slower to decline and often remain elevated for a longer period." Here's what to know about egg prices in Texas. Last time we reported on egg prices in Texas, the average price for a dozen was $5.43. Today, those prices remain largely unchanged, according to the World Population Review. The decline in national egg prices comes as the USDA reported fewer cases of bird flu last month. Bird flu cases declined significantly to 2.1 million cases in March, according to the USDA, compared to 12.64 million in February and 23.19 million in January. Yes, bird flu is still spreading, particularly the H5N1 strain. While the risk to the general public remains low, experts emphasize the need for continued surveillance and precautions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 70 total national cases. However, in Texas, no reports have been made of poultry farms or other animals being affected. -USA Today Network reporter Betty Lin-Fisher contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Egg prices are down in the US. How much does a dozen cost in Texas?


Chicago Tribune
2 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Indian Prairie School District 204 to increase breakfast and lunch prices
Students and families buying breakfast or lunch at Indian Prairie School District 204 schools can expect to see a higher price tag for meals next year, after the school board recently approved the district's request to increase prices across the board by 25 cents per meal. Previously, lunch was set at $3.30 for elementary school students, $3.40 for middle school students and $3.45 for high schoolers, per the district's website. Breakfast was priced at $2.25 for all students. The district also offers free breakfast and lunch to eligible students, and reduced rates of 30 cents for breakfast and 40 cents for lunch for students who qualify. Next school year, lunch will cost $3.55 for elementary school students, $3.65 for middle school students and $3.70 for high school students paying full price for meals, according to a memo from the district's Director of Support Operations Ron Johnson to the school board that was included in Monday's meeting agenda. Breakfast next school year will cost $2.50 for those paying full price. The following school year, prices will increase by another 25 cents for lunch, while breakfast prices will remain at $2.50, per the memo. The meal price increases were approved unanimously by the district's school board at the meeting on Monday evening as part of the consent agenda. According to the district's memo, the increase is required for compliance with the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, passed by Congress in 2010. The district says that legislation requires that they ensure there are sufficient funds provided to the nonprofit school food service account to serve lunches for students who are not eligible for free or reduced price meals. Reimbursements for free and reduced price meals cannot subsidize the cost of paid lunches, the district noted. The 'true cost' of providing lunch to district students, a memo from Johnson to the board states, is actually $6.14, but the cost to break even is around $5.36 when factoring in the revenue generated by paid student meals and a la carte items as well as federal reimbursements from the United States Department of Agriculture. According to Johnson's memo, the district is currently paying its food service provider, OrganicLife, about $4.41 per lunch served and about $2.31 for breakfast.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: As the feds abdicate responsibilities, states should band together
Until January, the federal government and the states had a mutually beneficial and straightforward deal: The federal government prioritized challenges requiring national solutions — e.g., national security, natural and public-health disaster relief, managing the American economy. For their part, the states delivered primarily local goods and services — Medicaid and Medicare, much of our transportation infrastructure, public education. Money, specifically taxpayer money, underpinned this deal. In 2023, the federal government collected about $4.7 trillion in taxes, sending back about $4.6 trillion to the states, mainly via social service programs. (The remainder of that year's roughly $6 trillion in federal spending was mostly financed by debt.) Now, this deal between Washington and the states is unraveling to tragic effect. In May, tornados ravaged communities in Kentucky and Missouri, killing 27 people. Because of cuts to the federal government in recent months, the National Weather Service is now stretched too thin to alert rural communities in the heartland about such deadly weather. Ordinarily, after such disasters, the feds could be counted on to provide relief. That too is far from a certainty. When natural disaster strikes — as it did in Arkansas this year in the form of severe storms and tornadoes — federal aid was initially denied and ultimately arrived weeks late. Similar aid was denied to those in West Virginia, Washington state and North Carolina. Meanwhile, normal and emergency disbursements to states and localities are being withheld or threatened explicitly because the administration dislikes a state's LGBTQ+-friendly policies or immigrant healthcare. We are just a little over four months into a four-year presidency, with seemingly more cuts to come. In late May, the federal government canceled a contract to develop a new vaccine to protect against flu strains with pandemic potential (including the H5N1 bird flu), alarming state public health officials across the nation. Some decisions by the feds have been successfully challenged in the courts. Realistically though, there is only so much the judges can and will do to force federal agencies to spend, especially when Congress endorses spending cuts. Meanwhile, states have duties and obligations to their residents. But making up for the massive federal shortfall is no easy feat. No state, acting alone, could come close to replicating the goods and services that the feds are no longer supplying. Each lacks economies of scale; the cost per person is prohibitively high without the bargaining power and efficiency of the federal government. The answer, quite simply, is for the states to pool their resources, thereby spreading the costs over a far wider number of taxpayers. Here are some examples of what clusters of like-minded states could do: set up interstate academic programs that pool students and faculty cut off from federal funds into large regional research consortia; re-create public-health and meteorology forecasting centers servicing member states; and finance pandemic planning and countermeasures, precisely what was lacking — and sorely needed — early in the COVID-19 crisis. Though some may assume these arrangements require congressional authorization, the courts have said otherwise, insisting such approval is necessary only when states threaten federal supremacy. (The converse would be true here. The states would be teaming up only because the feds have absented themselves.) Additional arrangements can be even looser understandings. Consider the vacuum created now that the Justice Department has disbanded the team that focused on corruption among officials and fraud by government employees. States can mobilize interstate criminal task forces to track and prosecute corruption by politicians, lobbyists and government contractors (who invariably, when violating federal laws, run afoul of myriad state laws, too). The Trump administration is also tabling consumer protection and environmental investigations and prosecutions. Here too states can pool their resources, extend their jurisdictional reach and protect their citizens, while possibly recouping some expenses. Successful litigation often carries with it awards of legal fees and sometimes damages or monetary bounties: Lawsuits brought by states could force polluters to pay for the damage they do. Of course, not all states will jump into action, at least not at first. But this is a feature, not a bug, of the coming clustering of like-minded states. The Trump administration has created an opportunity for beneficial 'races to the top' in regulatory matters. Here's how that works: As Washington abdicates its long-relied-upon responsibilities, those states that commit to making up for the federal shortfalls will retain residents and businesses. They'll also attract new ones, particularly those frustrated that their home states aren't taking similar compensatory measures. High-tax states are often at a competitive disadvantage, as evidenced by what the Wall Street Journal has repeatedly referred to as a 'Blue state exodus.' But we think that's less likely to happen going forward. Precisely because the feds are no longer promising to fund basic education, infrastructure and social services — and are no longer viewed as a reliable regulator — it's suddenly too risky to chance living or operating a business in a state that doesn't take basic health and safety seriously. Interstate collaboration isn't a cure-all, but it's a start on rebuilding a new national compact without the political strings that have been attached to federal funding in recent months, one that may endure for the foreseeable future. It's a chance to demonstrate resourceful, resilient and good-faith public service at a time when the risk of being worn down into complacency is perilously high. Aziz Z. Huq and Jon D. Michaels are professors of law at the University of Chicago and UCLA, respectively. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.