
US grocery prices: Sticker shock: How U.S. grocery bills stack up against Mexico, Canada, and China in surprising price reveal
United States
ADVERTISEMENT
Canada
ADVERTISEMENT
Mexico
ADVERTISEMENT
China
FAQs
While housing expenses rose during and after the pandemic, food prices went up even higher, as per a report. According to the USDA, from 2020 through 2024, food prices in the United States increased 23.6%, surpassing the 23.0% increase in housing expenses, as per GoBankingRates.However, food inflation has slowed considerably since then. Having peaked at 11.4% in 2022, it fell to 5.0% in 2023 and further to merely 1.2% in 2024, reported GoBankingRates report.But at the grocery store, Americans are spending more than many of their international neighbours, as per the report. Here's a comparison of US grocery affordability with Canada, Mexico, and China based on statistics from Numbeo, the USDA, and experts GoBankingRates spoke to.ALSO READ: Mark Cuban predicts painful red rural recession — here are 4 states he says should brace for economic fallout Grocery Cost Index: 71.75, as per Numbeo.Proportion of Average Consumer Expenditure: 6.8%, as per USDA data processed by Our World in Data.According to GobankingRates report, in absolute terms, groceries are more expensive in the United States than in Canada, Mexico, or China. But as a percentage of income, Americans are spending less on food than citizens of those nations , which is only 6.8% of the American's budget, as per the report.Consumer finance expert, Aaron Razon explained that, 'The U.S. imports groceries from other countries like Mexico and Canada, for year-round availability,' quoted GoBankingRates. Razon also mentioned that 'Add in the high cost of local labor and the impact of trade policies and tariffs on grocery prices, it's really no surprise that groceries would cost more in the U.S. than it does in these other countries,' as quoted in the report.Grocery Cost Index: 65.35Percentage of Average Consumer Expenditure: 9.7%According to a Numbeo report, groceries in Canada cost 5.8% less when they are priced in the same currency. However, the median Canadian also earns lesser than the median American, so an average Canadian household spends 9.7% of its budget on groceries, reported GobankingRates report.Grocery Cost Index: 38.22Share of Average Consumer Spending: 25.7%In Mexico, groceries are 42.3% cheaper in absolute terms, but even incomes are lower as well, as per Numbeo. While, Mexican households also have limited access to imported foods compared to Americans, and other than big cities, most Mexican families mainly eat locally grown food, reported GoBankingRates.Accountant Shalini Dharna said, 'In general, consumers in Mexico tend to have less disposable income than in the U.S. and Canada, so in relative terms groceries are more affordable in the U.S. than in Mexico,' quoted the GoBankingRates report.Grocery Cost Index: 34.18Percentage of Average Consumer Expenditure: 21.2%Groceries are even cheaper in China, which is 53.1% cheaper than in the United States, as per the report. However, food takes up a high portion of the average Chinese household's budget, especially for low-wage rural workers providing cheap labour, reported GoBankingRates.Razon said, 'China's large-scale agricultural production and low labor costs put them at an advantage when it comes to affordability,' as quoted in the report.Yes. After peaking at 11.4% in 2022, it dropped to 5.0% in 2023 and then to just 1.2% in 2024, as per GoBankingRates report.Groceries in Canada cost about 5.8% less than in the US, but Canadians typically earn less, so they end up spending 9.7% of their income on food, as per GobankingRates report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
26 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump has reasons to ambush Germany's Merz at Oval Office. Will he?
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will meet Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Thursday, hoping to avoid one of the US president's infamous ambushes amid discord over Ukraine and tariffs read more German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (L) and US President Donald Trump are pictured here against the backdrop of the Nato flag. File Photo- Agencies German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will meet Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Thursday, hoping to avoid one of the US president's infamous ambushes amid discord over Ukraine and tariffs. Trump's well-known disdain for 'bad, very bad' Germans puts Friedrich Merz in a politically sensitive spotlight. According to a Politico report, Merz is expected to face tough questions on camera over his February election night remarks, where he called for Europe to 'achieve independence from the USA' and described the Trump administration as 'largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Merz will also have to carefully navigate a range of fraught issues, including German car exports, Berlin's commitment to Nato and support for Ukraine, and — perhaps most delicately — the Trump administration's perceived alignment with the far-right, anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), now the country's second-largest political party. However, Merz may not need to lose sleep just yet. Early signs suggest he and Trump, both wealthy businessmen and avid golfers, could get along well. The new chancellor, a committed transatlanticist, has pledged a sharp shift in German policy, with major increases in defence spending and tougher migration controls—key Trump priorities, reported Politico. The visit also aligns with EU efforts to broker a peace deal on car exports, aiming to ease tensions in the brewing US-EU trade dispute. Adding to the positive tone, Trump has invited Merz to stay at Blair House, the official White House guest residence, a gesture seen by German officials as reassuring. According to Politico, a White House official, speaking anonymously, downplayed any drama, calling it 'just another foreign leader visit.' Merz, meanwhile, has sought to build rapport, even inviting Trump to visit his ancestral village in Germany, the birthplace of Trump's grandfather, Friedrich Trump. The German chancellor seems to think the calls between him and Trump went well. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'My first conversation with him was personally good, there are a few people we know in common … and I congratulated him on the American pope … and then we talked a bit about Chicago, and because the pope comes from there. I have often been there professionally,' Merz was quoted as saying recently. Impersonating Trump, he added, ''Oh, where do you know Chicago from? This is a great city! Chicago is a really great city.' That was kind of the tone of the conversation.' But the German delegation knows how quickly things can go off-script — like Trump's false 'genocide' claims made during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa May visit, or earlier attacks by Trump and Vice President JD Vance on Ukraine's President Zelenskyy. Vance's February speech at the Munich Security Conference, just before Merz's election win, hinted at the risks. In his speech, Vance attacked mainstream European leaders for 'running in fear' of their own voters, singling out Germany's 'firewall' around the rising AfD to keep centrist politicians from forming coalitions with the ostracised party. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Secretary of State Marco Rubio added fuel, accusing Germany's intelligence service of 'tyranny in disguise' for labeling AfD extremist. Vance's remarks clearly rattled Merz, who responded on election night by questioning whether Naro could survive in its current form, citing concerns over the US role. Just days earlier, he had called for talks to place Germany under the British and French nuclear umbrella. Despite the rocky start, Berlin-Washington ties have since improved significantly. To win over Trump, who once branded Germany 'delinquent' on defence and threatened to withdraw 12,000 US troops, Merz's government has pledged to build Europe's 'strongest conventional army.' It has also signaled a once-unthinkable shift: a gradual move toward spending 5% of GDP on defence, up from just over 2% today. Merz has quietly dropped talk of European 'independence.' During a May visit to Nato HQ, he said the Trump administration's view of Europe had 'obviously changed' and expressed new optimism about Nato's future. The US, he added, remains 'indispensable for Europe's security.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Washington appears to be responding. At a recent Singapore conference, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth praised Germany as a model—joking, 'it's hard to believe … I'm saying this.' On the AfD front, Merz can also take some comfort: Elon Musk, the party's loudest high-profile supporter, is no longer in government. Meanwhile, ahead of the meeting, Merz told reporters in Washington that if Trump brings up German domestic politics 'I will state my opinion very clearly if necessary.' Despite the tensions, Merz said he was 'looking forward' to his first face-to-face meeting with Trump. 'Our alliance with America was, is, and remains of paramount importance for the security, freedom, and prosperity of Europe,' he posted on X. The German chancellor is believed to have studied videos of previous Oval Office ambushes and learned how to stay calm and let Trump talk. With inputs from agencies

Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Explainer: What is agro-terrorism and fusarium graminearum threat fueling the US-China tensions?
The recent arrest of a Chinese researcher and charges against another for smuggling a dangerous crop-killing fungus into the United States have brought renewed attention to the threat of agro-terrorism. At the heart of the case is Fusarium graminearum, a potent plant pathogen capable of devastating cereal crops and disrupting national food supplies. US officials allege the two researchers, one of whom worked at a University of Michigan lab, intended to conduct unauthorized research on the fungus—raising fears of deliberate attempts to compromise American agriculture. The incident, unfolding amid heightened US-China tensions and trade disputes, highlights how scientific collaboration can be exploited to target a country's most vulnerable infrastructure: its food system. What is agro-terrorism? Agro-terrorism is the intentional use of biological agents—such as plant pathogens, pests, or contaminants—to attack a country's agricultural infrastructure. It targets food production systems with the aim of causing economic devastation, food insecurity, and public panic. Agro-terrorism is attractive to hostile actors because it is low-cost, difficult to detect, and capable of triggering far-reaching economic and social damage. Why agriculture is a soft target Agriculture-based sectors are especially vulnerable. Unlike military or financial systems, farms, food processing plants, and supply chains are less protected and widely dispersed. Biological attacks on crops or livestock can go undetected for weeks and are difficult to trace back to the perpetrators. This makes agro-terrorism a potent weapon for countries or groups seeking to destabilize a rival nation. Fusarium graminearum: A potent agro-terrorism threat At the center of the current controversy is Fusarium graminearum, a fungus that causes Fusarium head blight—a disease that ravages cereal crops such as wheat, barley, maize, and rice. The fungus not only decimates yields but also produces a toxin called vomitoxin (deoxynivalenol), making the grain unsafe for human and animal consumption. According to the US Department of Agriculture, this disease causes over $1 billion in crop losses annually in the United States alone. Vomitoxin can cause vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and fever in livestock and people, further amplifying its public health impact. The case: Chinese researchers charged Two Chinese nationals, Yunqing Jian (33) and Zunyong Liu (34), have been charged by US federal prosecutors with smuggling Fusarium graminearum into the United States—without proper permits and under false pretenses. Jian, who works at the University of Michigan, is currently in US custody. Liu, her boyfriend and a researcher in China, is believed to be in China and remains at large. According to the FBI, Liu carried baggies of the fungus into the US via the Detroit airport and initially lied about them. He later admitted he intended to use them for research in a Michigan lab. Jian allegedly received Chinese government funding for similar research and has expressed loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). US Attorney Jerome Gorgon Jr. described the smuggling as a 'national security' concern, emphasizing the CCP ties and the threat to America's food supply. Why this matters Although Fusarium graminearum already exists in the US, the unauthorised import of foreign strains is dangerous. Variants may be more virulent, pesticide-resistant, or adapted to new climates—making them harder to contain. Bringing them in without the proper biosecurity controls risks new outbreaks or genetic mutations that existing defenses can't manage. FBI Director Kash Patel warned that this could have "grave consequences... putting American lives and our economy at serious risk." He emphasised that this case illustrates how state-backed actors may attempt to infiltrate US institutions and compromise critical sectors like food security. Wider context: US-China tensions This incident comes amid deteriorating relations between Washington and Beijing. US-China trade talks stall after Geneva tariff truce Trade negotiations between the United States and China have stalled, just weeks after both sides agreed in Geneva to a 90-day cooling-off period by reducing tariffs. The agreement had seen China cut tariffs on American goods from 125% to 10%, while the U.S. proposed lowering its tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%. However, progress has faltered amid renewed tensions. U.S. President Donald Trump reignited the dispute on May 30, accusing China of 'totally violating' the Geneva deal, though he did not provide specifics. 'So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!' he wrote on social media. In response, China's Commerce Ministry denied any violations and accused Washington of making 'bogus charges' and taking 'unreasonable' actions, including export controls on AI chips and revoking Chinese student visas. The Trump administration has also recently announced a crackdown on Chinese student visas, citing national security threats. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledged to 'aggressively revoke' visas for Chinese students in sensitive research fields—moves Beijing has denounced as 'discriminatory.'


Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Europe cannot fathom what Trumpian America wants from it
Carl von Clausewitz, a 19th-century Prussian general, described warfare as 'the realm of uncertainty'. The fellow never had to deal with an American administration run by Donald Trump. Forget the fog of war Clausewitz posited; Europe is discovering the perils of wading through the haze of Pax Americana, MAGA edition. Wish it luck. Being the biggest trading partner of a country that seeks 'liberation' through tariffs, or a decades-long military ally of a superpower now parroting Kremlin talking points, is akin to inching through a geopolitical pea-souper. Europe is hardly alone in being flummoxed by Mr Trump (many Americans are, too). But it faces a unique problem: Europe cannot fathom what it should do to fix its already broken relationship with the new administration. Even if Europeans wanted to help their historical partner—a big 'if' these days—disagreements abound as to what that partner wants. The alliance with America has never been entirely straightforward. Yankee gripes about anaemic European military spending go back decades. A continent striving for ever-closer union was occasionally splintered into factions for American convenience, as when George W. Bush's lot tried to pit 'old Europe' against 'new Europe' during the Gulf war. American regulators clobbered French and German firms with billion-dollar fines while decrying any constraints on their own tech giants doing business in the European Union. Even pro-European administrations wound up blindsiding the continent's policymakers. In 2022 Joe Biden announced generous green-industry subsidies (Bravo!) which turned out to be closed to market-leading firms in Europe (Zut alors!). But this time is different. The Trumpian top brass making decisions of great import to Europe—not least over the fate of Ukraine—hold America's historical allies in startling contempt. In a recent leak from a not-so-secret Signal group of top officials, Europe was decried as 'PATHETIC' by Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary. J.D. Vance was just as critical, though this was predictable after the vice-president had blasted Europeans at a conference in Munich in February. Mr Trump had himself set the tone, imagining that the EU had been set up with the sole intent to 'screw' America. On April 2nd he whacked European imports with a tariff rate of 20%. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said she felt 'let down by our oldest ally'. Speaking to diplomats in Brussels and beyond, Charlemagne has heard three theories to explain MAGA hatred of Europe. Understanding which is correct matters, because each comes with its own set of remedies to assuage the Euro-bashers. The first possibility is that Mr Trump simply shares his predecessors' desire that Europeans bear the burden for their own defence, and feels unconstrained by diplomatic niceties in making the case. Barack Obama warned over a decade ago that America would 'pivot to Asia' (ie, away from Europe and the Middle East) to address a Chinese threat that has since grown more acute. That did little to motivate Europe into spending more. By contrast, Trumpian goading—insulting as it might seem—has been effective at getting allies to step up. If scrimping on defence is indeed what troubles America, the solution is on its way: Europe will promise to spend much more on defence at a NATO summit in June. The second theory of MAGA Euro-hostility is more worrying. According to this school, the invective directed at Europe is about more than freeloading on defence. After all, America's Asian allies also underspend on their armed forces but are facing no such abuse. Rather, Europe is being punished for its crime of lèse-Amérique. By banging on about global norms, Europeans are an irritant to might-makes-right Trumpians. How dare the EU regulate Big Tech? How dare Denmark think Greenland would not be better off in American hands? Europe's role should be to play second fiddle, or, better yet, pipe down. On this reading, to be a better ally, Europe would have to bend the knee, for example by helping constrain China at Washington's behest. This may be humiliating, if not downright unrealistic in the case of ceding Greenland, which is not Denmark's to give away. But seasoned EU diplomats think it may provide the basis for a fraught but workable relationship. Yet some European officials perceive a third kind of MAGA animosity, one they are powerless to do anything about. For this contempt is aimed at a continent that exists only in the imagination of Fox News presenters (as Mr Hegseth once was). Europhobes of this type see it as a flailing continent on the economic skids, one bent on demographic suicide, where the only people who enjoy free speech are Muslim extremists imposing sharia on a woke populace. For them, Europe is a cautionary tale: what America might degenerate into without Mr Trump's 'help'. This fantastical vision offers Europe no way to indulge America, short of handing over power to the likes of Alternative for Germany, a Nazi-adjacent party bafflingly admired by Mr Vance. To be fair to the MAGA Euro-bashers, their spite towards Europe is reciprocated—as any leak of European leaders' candid Signal chats about Mr Trump and his team would probably attest. Without any certainty as to why they are loathed in Washington, Europeans are falling back on their old diplomatic instincts: keep engaging and don't despair. Sometimes it works. On March 29th Alexander Stubb, Finland's president, spent hours playing golf with Mr Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Soon after, Mr Trump declared himself 'pissed off' with Russia's Vladimir Putin for failing to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine—a useful win for Europe. Many hope America might still give concrete support to a Europe-led 'reassurance force' in Ukraine. Occasionally, the two old allies still manage to find one another, through the bitter mist. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.