Featured Average Price of Ground Beef Hits All-Time High

Looks like Bush worked aggressively to raise the price of beef as well.

Appears Clinton worked to lower or maintain the price.


Year Jan
1990 1.907
1991 1.996
1992 1.926
1993 1.970
1994 1.892
1995 1.847
1996 1.799
1997 1.850
1998 1.818
1999 1.834
2000 1.903
2001 2.037
2002 2.152
2003 2.131
2004 2.585
2005 2.478
2006 2.607
2007 2.630
2008 2.725
2009 2.961
2010 2.825
2011 2.991
2012 3.292
2013 3.406
2014 3.586

 

Food prices have been pretty low versus inflation for the better part of two decades. Perhaps its time for them to rise.

It is pretty crazy to try to affix the blame to the President. Look at what has been happening in the midwest over the past couple of years, droughts, fires, etc. That's what is mostly behind the rise in beef costs.

Food prices have been talked about for about 18 months now in futures evaluations by economists and market watchers. There is a strong indication they will continue to rise too, regardless of who the President might be.

 

Didn't see Obama's name mentioned in that article.

 

This (above) is an op-ed addition to the news story (below).

Yes, and WHY do U.S. labels violate international standards? Because they give the consumer TOO MUCH information, information that other countries are not required to list on their meat products. Thus, Canada and Mexico are threatening tariffs on U.S. imports to their countries. THAT is what would "cripple the industry and shutter plants".

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-origin-labeling-dispute-threatens-us-exports

A better plan would be to change the labeling requirements so they align with other nation's requirements. In effect, lower the amount of information required. (U.S. meat packing plants have been attaching country-of-origin labels since 2009.) It's just a label.

 

I noticed that Carpro and others have not thanked Obama for the falling gasoline prices. I paid $3.24 a gallon today. If they want to condemn him for other commodities rising in price, they should also thank him for falling prices.

 

Highly suspect as they are probably more worried about having to tell the truth about what is in their meat, i.e. pink slime for instance.

 

Of course I read the OP article. But I was not responding to the OP, as you should have known if you are able to read and comprehend. I was responding to the meat associations being against the labeling. Of course they are against any labeling. After all, they fought against labeling as it is now. Why would they want to be forced to tell more truth?

Of, of course beef costs more. There is nothing surprising about that. What is surprising is that after the terrible drought in Texas and the mid-west last year that the price of beef isn't higher than it is at the moment.

 

It was that low because the economy took a tank.

 

<Sigh>....that's not it. Please read the OP.

The U.S. meat packing industry opposes Obama's new labeling requirement because it needlessly complicates the identification process. For example, meat going to this particular country needs to disclose certain information, that requires three labels; meat going over here doesn't need labels at all; meat going over here needs this label, but not that label, etc.

Canada and Mexico don't have that sort of information listed on their meat and see the enhanced U.S. required information as a threat to their world wide exports--presumably other countries would want beef with this information and not Canada's beef--and so Canada threatens to slap tariffs on imported U.S. beef.

The U.S. meat industry wants to go to the minimum label information required, or junk the labels altogether, but Obama is insisting on requiring more information and more labels.

 

I vote for this as the best response. Possibly in the history of BB responses.

 

Oh my goodness, I could not stop laughing when I saw this response.

:thumbsup: