Butter prices soar to $8.50 amid global dairy surge
In Woolworths this week, home brand butter was selling for $8.49.
The Global Dairy Trade auction price for butter has risen from US$6631/MT in December to US$7992 in the latest auction.
A spokesperson for Woolworths said the supermarket was trying to keep butter prices as low as possible.
'With the recent rise in price, early trends are showing a minor reduction in the volume of butter purchased. The driving factors here consist of customers switching to dairy or table spreads, reducing their butter buying frequency, or ceasing purchases altogether.
'Market conditions have changed significantly in the last few months and international butter prices are now at record highs. While this is great news for our farmers, it does mean we have to pass on these increased prices to our customers, which is why we've changed the shelf price for butter products.'
Gareth Kiernan, chief forecaster at Infometrics, said Woolworths' home brand butter had increased from $7.19 the last time he bought it, to its current price of just under $8.50.
'The strongest correlation appears to be about a four-month lag between GDT price movements and retail movements, so current butter prices at the supermarket might only reflect GDT pricing up to January.
'The GDT butter index (priced in USD) has risen another 16 percent since January, mitigated by a 6% recovery in the USD/NZD exchange rate, resulting in a rise of almost 10% in NZD terms. On that basis, further increases of another 50c to $1 per block look possible by September, taking prices for the supermarket brands to as high as $9.50.'
ASB senior economist Mark Smith said it was to be expected consumers would reach the limit of what they were prepared to pay.
'The reason probably why also that the butter prices have been so high is that the dairy supply is being reasonably constrained in the European market. And it's contributing to what we're seeing here.'
He said US tariffs could have an impact on the flow of dairy products around the world.
'We do send quite a lot of dairy products to the US, but they could well be diverted to other markets.
'So certainly dairy prices will be higher for US consumers. For New Zealand consumers, we could see the reverse if some product that was heading for the US actually headed elsewhere...'
But he said demand for New Zealand product was likely to be strong given the country was an efficient producer, although overall tariffs would have a dampening effect.
Smith said the increase could put pressure on inflation in the coming months. 'Unfortunately inflation as a whole looks like it's going to be picking up in the middle of this year and if anything will be pretty close to 3% ... which is pretty awkward for Reserve Bank that is trying to make sure the New Zealand economy doesn't unduly suffer, yet we've still got inflation remaining high.'
He said there were enough signs that the labour market was still very soft and wage inflation cooling which would help, but it would be awkward for the Reserve Bank in the near term.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Techday NZ
3 hours ago
- Techday NZ
US-China chip export debate highlights risks for AI leadership
DeepSeek. TikTok. Taiwan. And a White House shake-up on AI rules. The spiralling US-China technology rivalry landed at the heart of Johns Hopkins University last week, as a panel of top experts and policymakers took to the stage to debate whether restricting exports of advanced semiconductors to China can help the US maintain its edge in the race for artificial intelligence. The discussion, hosted by Open to Debate in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute, comes at a critical time. In Washington, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back the Biden-era AI Diffusion Rule and introduce new chip export controls targeting China – a move seen by many as a signal that the technology contest between the two superpowers is only intensifying. On one side of the Johns Hopkins debate were Lindsay Gorman, managing director at the German Marshall Fund's Technology Program, and former CIA officer and congressman Will Hurd. They argued the answer is yes: semiconductor controls can give the US a real advantage in the AI race. Gorman pointed to DeepSeek, a Chinese AI model whose CEO has publicly lamented the impact of advanced chip bans. "Money has never been the problem for us. Bans on shipments of advanced chips are the problem. And they have to consume twice the power to achieve the same results," she quoted, highlighting how China's AI advances still depend heavily on imported hardware. "The United States has significant hard computing power advantages – the ability to produce high-end chips, designed specifically for training AI models," Gorman told the audience. She argued that, together with its allies, the US controls a "strategic choke point" on computing power. "Properly implemented controls can have an effect and also have an increasing and compounding effect over time in retarding China's AI advantages and giving the United States a head start," she explained. Will Hurd, who also served on OpenAI's board before running for US president, compared the AI contest to the nuclear arms race. "Artificial intelligence is the equivalent of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission controlled gives you nuclear power… uncontrolled, nuclear weapons can kill everybody," he said. Hurd emphasised the importance of first-mover advantage, warning that the US cannot afford to lose its technological lead. He also highlighted a lack of reciprocity in the tech relationship between the two countries. "Chinese companies like Baidu, DJI, and TikTok operate freely in the US, but American companies are not allowed to operate in China," Hurd pointed out. "If there was a level of reciprocity between our two countries, we wouldn't be here having this debate about chip controls." Yet, on the opposing side, former senior US diplomat Susan Thornton and technology strategist Paul Triolo insisted the US could not outpace China in AI simply by tightening export controls. Triolo argued that the controls are "not working and will not lead to US dominance in AI", describing them as a blunt instrument that creates confusion for industry and disrupts global supply chains. "Most experts believe that Chinese companies are only three months behind US leaders in developing advanced AI models," Triolo said, suggesting any technological gap is vanishingly slim. Thornton, who spent decades at the heart of US-China diplomacy, warned of unintended consequences. "The main thing we should be asking ourselves about this question… is what is the cost benefit of US policy actions?" she said. "We have to face the reality that China is already building AI… a third of the world's top AI scientists are Chinese. China is one third of the entire global technology market. So it's clearly a player." She cautioned that blocking China from critical technology could backfire, hurting US companies, alienating allies and raising the risks around Taiwan, the global centre of advanced chip manufacturing. "Certainly, the one thing we need to do is avoid going to war," Thornton warned. "Taiwan, the most sensitive issue in US-China relations, has now been dragged right into the middle of this AI issue because they're the place that produces all the cutting-edge chips that we're trying to control." Audience members pressed the panel on whether international collaboration on AI safety was possible, and whether the US could ever match China's data advantage, given the size of the Chinese population and its permissive data environment. Hurd conceded that "the US will always have less data because we have a little thing called civil liberties," but argued that superior algorithms and privacy-protective machine learning could level the playing field. For Triolo, the dynamic nature of the technology means that attempts to wall off China are self-defeating. "There are many ways to get to different ends. The controls have forced Chinese companies to work together, develop innovations, and become more competitive both domestically and globally," he said. Gorman, in closing, rejected what she called "a defeatism that says America can't out-compete China or slow its progress". "Our companies are doing well. There isn't an issue here with demand, it's with supply. Doing better means that we have to throw what we can at this problem now with a smart application of tools," she argued. But Thornton had the last word, urging caution. "Making the AI competition with China a zero-sum game, not only will not work, it is dangerous," she said. "We should focus on the things that are going to matter to our children and their children, which is the long-term AI competition, which if not constrained and bounded by international agreements and by cooperation among countries… it'll be a very dangerous world."
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
On the campaign trail, Elon Musk juggled drugs and family drama
As Elon Musk entered President Trump's orbit, his private life grew increasingly tumultuous and his drug use was more intense than previously known. As Elon Musk became one of Donald Trump's closest allies last year, leading raucous rallies and donating about US$275 million ($455m) to help him win the presidency,
Kiwiblog
a day ago
- Kiwiblog
Will Stuff staff get their 10%?
Stuff owner Sinead Boucher has sold 50% of Stuff Digital to Trade Me, which in turn is 100% owned by Apax Partners, a British private equity firm with around US$77 billion in assets. Good on Boucher. I have no issue with foreign investment in media companies. The discipline they may bring to Stuff Digital could be very good for them. In 2021, Stuff reported: Stuff owner and chief executive Sinead Boucher is gifting a 10 per cent share of the media firm to the company's close to 900 staff. The stake in the company will be transferred to a trust controlled by employee representatives, rather than the shares being directly owned by staff members. The arrangement means staff would receive through the trust a share of any dividends Stuff pays out, and 10 per cent of the sale proceeds if Stuff was later sold or listed, she said. This never happened, as it was later modified to happening if any shares were sold or exited. Presumably this has happened, so we will see 10% of Stuff Digital transferred to a staff trust? Radio NZ report: After Boucher bought Stuff for $1 in 2020, she told staff that a 10 percent stake of the company would be put into a staff trust in the event that the business was sold or listed. A spokesperson said that, while there was still some time until the deal was to be completed, it was Boucher's expectation that a payment would be made into the staff trust. A payment? Would it be a payment equal to one fifth of what Trade Me paid? Shouldn't it be non-voting shares of 10% of Stuff Digital, rather than a payment? After all, that is what was promised?
