logo
Opinion - Egg companies are getting government bailouts while price-gouging consumers

Opinion - Egg companies are getting government bailouts while price-gouging consumers

Yahoo01-05-2025

Egg prices reached another record high last month. It now costs American shoppers an average of $6.23 for a dozen eggs — nearly a five-fold increase since 2020.
Yet while families have been squeezed by grocery sticker shock, agriculture corporations have been raking in record profits. Cal-Maine, the country's largest egg producer, took in $509 million this quarter alone, tripling its profits from a year ago.
Gouging consumers is bad enough. But it gets worse: Cal-Maine and other ag companies were breaking the bank at the same time they were also quietly getting millions in taxpayer-funded relief payments from the federal government. Congress and the Trump administration must put a stop to this: No company that is getting corporate subsidies should be allowed to hike prices and extract windfall profits from American consumers.
Exorbitant egg prices have ostensibly been caused by repeated avian flu outbreaks in recent years. Or at least that's the industry's story. As the advocacy organization Farm Action explained in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, over the last two years, some 115 million egg-laying chickens have been culled in response to avian flu outbreaks — a tragically large loss of animal life, but a relative drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of the country's poultry industry. Even after this reduction in the country's chicken supply, monthly egg production only dipped about 4 percent.
This relatively modest decrease in egg supply shouldn't have led to the exorbitant prices confronting consumers at the supermarket. Yet egg producers have used avian flu as an opportunity to massively pad their profit margins. As Farm Action's letter put it, 'dominant egg producers — particularly Cal-Maine Foods — have leveraged the crisis to raise prices, amass record profits, and consolidate market power.' The Department of Justice is now investigating Cal-Maine for alleged price fixing.
While big agricultural companies are ripping off consumers with one hand, they are taking taxpayer-funded bailouts with the other. The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave Cal-Maine $22 million in avian flu relief last year, and gave millions more to other major egg producers. Under an indemnity program, the department provides monetary relief to compensate farms that destroy animals in response to disease outbreaks like avian flu. USDA has made around $1 billion in such payments to agricultural producers since 2022.
If taxpayers are going to subsidize egg producers contending with avian flu, then the least those companies could do in exchange is adhere to normal pricing. But if producers can't be trusted to abstain from profiteering, then the government should mandate fair prices in exchange for federal relief money.
Indemnity payments should be conditioned on recipient producers charging prices equal to their actual costs, plus a profit margin based on the industry's typical historical levels before the onset of avian flu.
The Trump administration could unilaterally adopt this policy to protect consumers. Under current law, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins may adopt any regulation she deems necessary to carry out the Department's avian flu compensation program. Secretary Rollins could accordingly add mandatory fair pricing as a condition of payment for producers receiving indemnity funds.
This would be particularly appropriate given that the Secretary recently made the program even more generous by more than doubling the rate of payment to producers under the program. Moreover, no-strings-attached federal bailouts may even be propagating avian flu by diminishing the incentives companies have to adopt safer, more biosecure production practices.
Alternatively, Congress could force the administration to guarantee a fair deal for consumers and taxpayers. Whether in standalone legislation or this year's farm bill, Congress could require fair pricing as a condition for payments to producers under the law.
More generally, Congress should enact a national prohibition on price-gouging. As I explain in a recent report, there is currently a limited federal price-gouging ban under the Defense Production Act of 1950, which both presidents Trump and Biden used to prosecute retailers who hoarded and overcharged for masks and other personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
With the Defense Production Act up for reauthorization this year, Congress should strengthen this price-gouging ban to prohibit companies from profiteering by charging unfairly excessive prices for products affected by pathogenic disease like avian flu or other similar supply constraints.
For much of the twentieth century, the government routinely intervened to protect consumers from high prices and inflation. When inflation largely abated from the 1980s through 2020, we lost that policy muscle. However, now that we have returned to an era of affordability crises, supply shocks, and sellers' pricing power, policymakers must relearn how to combat unfair pricing. Cracking down on overcharging by agricultural giants taking taxpayer handouts would be a good place to start.
Joel Dodge is the Director of Industrial Policy and Economic Security at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. He published a recent report on the Defense Production Act as an anti-inflation law.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment
Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment

The Hill

time16 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring to the Pentagon. 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions. He clearly can't solve this, so California will.' Newsom was responding to a post from DOD Rapid Response on X, a Pentagon-run account, which claimed that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' President Trump on Saturday deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amid the ICE protests, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the decision was made due to 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' While protests have intensified in recent days, devolving at times into violence, the majority of gatherings have been largely peaceful. Still, California National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, with some 300 deployed on the ground later that day at three locations: Los Angeles proper, Paramount and Compton. White House officials have sought to highlight images of burning vehicles and clashes with law enforcement to make the case that the situation had gotten out of control. 'The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail,' Trump told reporters on Monday. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to deploy approximately 500 U.S. Marines to the city, with U.S. Northern Command on Sunday confirming the service members were 'prepared to deploy.' The use of American troops has rankled California officials, who have said the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Newsom also has traded insults with Hegseth, calling him 'a joke,' and that the idea of deploying active duty Marines in California was 'deranged behavior.' 'Pete Hegseth's a joke. He's a joke. Everybody knows he's so in over his head. What an embarrassment. That guy's weakness masquerading as strength. . . . It's a serious moment,' Newsom said in an interview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. The tit-for-tat continued when chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then took to X on Monday to attack Newsom. 'LA is on FIRE right now, but instead of tackling the issue, Gavin Newsom is spending his time attacking Secretary Hegseth,' Parnell wrote. 'Unlike Newsom, [Hegseth] isn't afraid to lead.' Newsom, who has formally demanded the Trump administration pull the National Guard troops off the streets, has declared the deployment 'unlawful' and said California will sue the Trump administration over its actions. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' David Sapp, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Sunday. 'Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' In the past 60 years, a U.S. president has only on one occasion mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor to quell unrest or enforce the law. That was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.

AP PHOTOS: Trump's new travel ban takes effect, and some protest
AP PHOTOS: Trump's new travel ban takes effect, and some protest

San Francisco Chronicle​

time17 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

AP PHOTOS: Trump's new travel ban takes effect, and some protest

President Donald Trump's ban on travel to the United States took effect Monday. Demonstrators outside Los Angeles International Airport held signs protesting the ban affecting citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries. At Miami International Airport, passengers moved steadily through an area for international arrivals. Tensions are escalating over the Trump administration's campaign of immigration enforcement. The new ban applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.

Mass. Sen. Warren: DOGE accessed ‘sensitive' student loan data at Education Dept., calls for probe
Mass. Sen. Warren: DOGE accessed ‘sensitive' student loan data at Education Dept., calls for probe

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Mass. Sen. Warren: DOGE accessed ‘sensitive' student loan data at Education Dept., calls for probe

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she wants to know how the quasi-governmental Department of Government Efficiency gained access to 'sensitive' student loan information at the U.S. Department of Education. On Monday, Warren and U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, both Democrats, called for the agency's acting inspector general to find out how that breach happened. They were joined by Democratic senators from eight states, including U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Warren said lawmakers learned of the potential breach of systems at Federal Student Aid after DOGE, which was helmed until recently by tech titan Elon Musk, infiltrated the agency. In response, Education Department officials revealed that DOGE workers 'supported' a review of the FSA's contracts. As a part of that review, one employee was granted 'read-only' access to two internal systems that held sensitive personal information about borrowers. The agency said it had since revoked that access. But, according to Warren, it did not explain why that access had been revoked, or whether the employee had continued access to other databases. 'Because of the [Education] department's refusal to provide full and complete information, the full extent of DOGE's role and influence at ED remains unknown,' the lawmakers wrote in a June 8 letter to René L. Rocque, the agency's acting inspector general. That 'lack of clarity is not only frustrating for borrowers but also dangerous for the future of an agency that handles an extensive student loan portfolio and a range of federal aid programs for higher education,' the lawmakers continued. Warren, Markey and their colleagues have called on Roque's office to determine whether the department adhered to the Federal Privacy Act, which dictates how the government can collect and use personal information. They also asked Roque to 'determine the impact of DOGE's new plans to consolidate Americans' personal information across government databases.' 'It won't end well for Trump' if he does this amid LA protests, ex-GOP rep says All Ivy League schools are supporting Harvard lawsuit — except these 2 Embassies directed to resume processing Harvard University student visas Over 12,000 Harvard alums lend weight to court battle with Trump in new filing Markey: Trump using National Guard in LA to distract from big cuts in 'Big Beautiful Bill' Read the original article on MassLive.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store