Avian Flu: How bird disease is driving up US egg prices
Avian flu outbreaks have been blamed for soaring egg prices in the US thanks to an ongoing epidemic that has killed upwards of 150 million birds and wreaked havoc on the American poultry industry.
However, the virus may not be the only factor that has driven egg prices to new records, with the potential for prices expected to climb by another 41 per cent this year.
According to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, the cost of a dozen eggs hit a new record high of $4.95 in January, nearly doubling in price in the space of a year and surpassing the previous high of $4.82 set in January 2023.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said prices had hit a whopping $8.05 by the end of February, before falling to $6.85 in the first week of March.
The current outbreak of the flu began in 2022.
The USDA said that so far just this year, 30.3 million egg-laying hens have been killed due to highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks. The majority of those birds, 22.4 million, were from conventional cage farm systems.
To date, the department has confirmed 40 outbreaks across nine states with officials maintaining that infection rates are slowing and are localized.
During the election campaign, President Donald Trump vowed to bring down the price of eggs on the first day of his second term.
Trump claimed during his recent address to a joint session of Congress that his predecessor was responsible for the 'out of control' pricing. He maintained that he was 'working hard to get it back down.'
The issue is something that doesn't appear to be the most pressing on Trump's agenda. Over the weekend, Trump shared an article on his Truth Social platform titled 'Shut up about egg prices – Trump is saving consumers millions.' The piece alleged that the egg price crisis 'in no way President Trump's fault.'
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has launched an investigation into egg prices and competition in the egg market amid suspicions that some producers may be overly inflating their prices.
The investigation also focuses on whether producers were being transparent about their costs and whether the large producers colluded in any way over price setting.
A report from Food and Water Watch pointed out that 'just a handful of companies' produce the majority of America's eggs, 'giving them outsized control over the prices paid by retailers'.
In late February, the Trump administration announced an investment of up to $1 billion to halt the crisis and 'make eggs affordable again.' Half of the investment was set to go to producers to help with biosecurity measures, according to the Wall Street Journal.
In that announcement, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also suggested Americans start raising their own chickens in their backyards.
Rent-a-chicken services have risen in popularity, with companies offering to rent two-to-four hens, a portable coop, food and care instructions for those who want to produce their own eggs but aren't sure where to start.
One company, Rent the Chicken, said the chickens should lay a dozen to two dozen eggs a week, depending on the rental package, which starts at about $600.
The company's co-owner Jenn Tompkins said that business has been booming this year, after steadily rising in popularity since the start of the pandemic.
'Our renters don't have to be concerned about egg shortages or store prices. They can just walk out to their backyard coop and find their eggs right there, ready for them,' she told CTV News.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
36 minutes ago
- BBC News
India-US trade: Is the 'big, beautiful' deal in trouble?
Is the "big, beautiful" India-US trade deal slipping out of reach?With just days to go before a 9 July deadline set by US President Donald Trump's administration, hopes of clinching an interim trade pact between Delhi and Washington remain alive but increasingly entangled in hard White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt hinting that the deal was imminent, and Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman's upbeat assertion that Delhi would welcome "a big, good, beautiful" agreement - in response to Trump's claim that a trade deal with Delhi is coming and would "open up" the Indian market - negotiators remain locked in tough discussions. Key sticking points persist, particularly over agricultural access, auto components and tariffs on Indian trade officials have extended their stay in Washington for another round of talks, even as Delhi signals "very big red lines" on farm and dairy protections, and the US presses for wider market openings. The tone remains optimistic - but the window to strike a deal appears to be wants India to buy US corn - but here's why it probably won't"The next seven days could determine whether India and the US settle for a limited 'mini-deal' or walk away from the negotiating table - at least for now," says Ajay Srivastava, a former Indian trade official who runs Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), a Delhi-based think uncertainty hinges on a few key flashpoints - none more contentious than agriculture."There are two real challenges to concluding an initial agreement. First on the list is US access to the Indian market for basic agriculture products. India will need to protect its basic agriculture sector for economic and political reasons," Richard Rossow, who tracks India's economy at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the years, Washington has pushed for greater access to India's farm sector, seeing it as a major untapped market. But India has fiercely protected it, citing food security, livelihoods and interests of millions of small Rossow says the "second issue is India's non-tariff barriers. Issues like India's growing set of 'Quality Control Orders' (QCO) are significant obstacles to US market access and may prove tricky to meaningfully handle in a trade deal".The US has raised concerns over what it calls India's growing and burdensome import-quality rules. Over 700 QCOs - part of the "self-reliant India" push - aim to curb low-quality imports and promote domestic manufacturing. Suman Berry, a senior member of a government think tank Niti Aayog, has also called these rules a "malign intervention" that restrict imports and raise costs for domestic medium and small scale industries. The elephant in the room is farm exports. India-US farm trade remains modest at $8bn, with India exporting rice, shrimp and spices, and the US sending nuts, apples and lentils. But as trade talks progress, Washington is eyeing bigger farm exports - maize, soya bean, cotton and corn - to help narrow its $45bn trade deficit with fear tariff concessions could pressure India to weaken its minimum support prices (MSP) and public procurement - key protections that shield farmers from price crashes by guaranteeing fair prices and stable crop purchases."No tariff cuts are expected for dairy products or key food grains like rice and wheat, where farm livelihoods are at stake. These categories are politically and economically sensitive, affecting over 700 million people in India's rural economy," says Mr a recent Niti Aayog paper recommends tariff cuts on US farm imports - including rice, dairy, poultry, corn, apples, almonds and GM soya - under a proposed India-US trade pact. It's unclear, however, whether the proposal reflects official government thinking or remains a policy suggestion on paper."If the US were to say 'no deal' if India does not include access on basic agriculture, then clearly American expectations were not set correctly. Any democratically-elected government will have political limits to commercial policy choices," says Mr what could happen with the deal now?Experts like Mr Srivastava believe that the "more likely outcome is a limited trade pact" - styled after the US-UK mini trade deal announced on 8 the proposed deal, India may cut tariffs on a range of industrial goods - including automobiles, a long-standing US demand - and offer limited agricultural access via tariff cuts and quotas on select products like ethanol, almonds, walnuts, apples, raisins, avocados, olive oil, spirits and tariff cuts, the US is likely to push India for large-scale commercial buys - from oil and LNG to Boeing aircraft, helicopters and nuclear reactors. Washington may also seek FDI easing in multi-brand retail, benefiting firms like Amazon and Walmart, and relaxed rules on re-manufactured goods."This 'mini-deal', if concluded, would therefore focus on tariff reductions and strategic commitments, leaving broader FTA issues - including services trade, intellectual property (IP) rights and digital regulations - for a future negotiation," says Mr the start, the India-US trade talks appeared to be grounded in a clear and fair vision."The two leaders [Trump and Modi] laid out a simple concept in their first summit this year. The US would focus on manufactured goods that are capital-intensive, while India would focus on items that are labour-intensive," says Mr Rossow. But things appear to have changed talks fail, Trump is unlikely to reinstate the 26% tariffs on India, experts believe. While 57 countries faced these levies in April, only the UK has secured a deal so far. Targeting India specifically could seem unfair. "Still, with Trump, surprises can't be ruled out," says Mr Srivastava.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
This July 4th in Trump's America, our patriotism is protest
That's certainly what he would want. If nothing else, Trump in his second term has shown Americans that fealty to him is all that matters. His lackeys in Congress parrot his language and propose bills to put the King of Mar-a-Lago's face on currency or Mount Rushmore. As Trump's un-American actions mount, we have to find our own patriotism On Thursday, June 26, journalists were scolded mercilessly by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for having the audacity to report that Trump's recent bombing of Iranian nuclear sites might not have been as successful as the president claimed. It was as close to "You must not question Dear Leader!" rhetoric as you can get without being in North Korea. He suggested that reporters - you know, the Fourth Estate, the ones responsible for holding the powerful accountable - take the president's word for things, suggesting: "Wave an American flag. Be proud of what we accomplished." Some will follow the administration's instructions, of course. Trump will always have his hardcore MAGA base, and that base will never deign to question his infallibility. They, like Trump, will wrap themselves tight in the American flag and use it as a shield to deflect inconvenient things like facts or criticism. They will, as Hegseth and Trump did, claim any notion that a military action fell short of its goals is a direct insult to our brave soldiers. Opinion: From massive protests to a puny parade, America really let Donald Trump down Patriotism in the age of Trump, for many, is standing up to the nonsense But what of the rest of us? You know, the ones in the majority, assuming you care to believe public polling that shows Trump's favorability well underwater and negative views of his decision to bomb Iran, his stewardship of the economy and his draconian acts against migrants. What does our patriotism, in this rather pivotal moment in American history, look like? How do we celebrate America - the right-now version of America - when democracy looks as fragile as a cracked sheet of thin ice over a warming pond? I imagine everyone will have a different answer, and I'm not here to claim I know best. But as a critic of Trump and all he has done to mangle this country and its sense of decency, I can share my form of Fourth of July patriotism. Share your view: What does patriotism look like to you? Tell us. | Opinion Forum I still love this country. That's why I mercilessly mock the rubes in charge. It involves still loving the heck out of this country, and celebrating the fact that, at least for the moment, I'm free to tell Hegseth to take his little flag-waving idea and his "How dare you question our authority!" attitude and pound sand. It involves sharing a quote from Trump talking about himself, Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the wake of the Iran bombings: "We feel like warriors." Then it involves using space in my column to mercilessly ridicule the absurdity of that quote: A warrior? You're as much a warrior as I am a duck, and buddy, my hide is featherless and my feet aren't remotely webbed. You bone-spurred your way out of the Vietnam War and quite possibly bombed Iran because people made fun of your sad birthday parade. Get over yourself. Authoritarians are sensitive little flowers - give 'em hell Authoritarian types like Trump hate mockery. Their fragile egos can't bear it. So I, like many non-MAGA Americans, give them the derision they deserve. In a country built on resistance to a monarchy and aristocrats, that is patriotic. In fact, it's almost definitionally American. We can love this country and loathe the people in charge. We can be simultaneously proud of this country and embarrassed of the things being done in its name. So my patriotism this Fourth of July week is to loudly declare that my America doesn't stand for masked federal agents grabbing migrant children and mothers and fathers off the streets and whisking them away without due process. My America is welcoming, and just, and decent. And no two-bit con-artist president is going to take away my belief that these un-American actions can and will be stopped. Nothing less American than saying a mayoral candidate should be deported Republican Rep. Andy Ogles sent a letter Thursday to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi declaring that Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic primary winner in New York City's mayoral race, is "an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York" and calling for him to be deported. Aside from being baseless and laughably stupid, Ogles' letter and the intent behind it are as un-American as it gets. My patriotism will take the form of calling Ogles a sad, opportunistic dingbat and noting that future generations of his family will deny any connection to him, lest they be cast out of civil society or die of embarrassment. My America ridicules powerful dummies and stands strong in protest My America won't tolerate racists or xenophobes or clout-chasing knuckleheads who think the American dream involves trampling carelessly over others while forgetting the very things that make this country great. My America fights back against tyranny and indecency with ridicule, peaceful public protest, voting and a unified voice. I'm not happy with the state of America, and I'm particularly not happy with the array of malicious weirdos currently running the joint. But I'm not going to look at the American flag and feel ashamed. That flag still represents a country I believe to be well worth fighting for, and a set of ideas I won't let a pack of grifters and warped-brain scoundrels erase. Opinion: Trump says we have 'too many non-working holidays.' He's right. Rest is for LOSERS! On the Fourth of July, find your patriotism and live it I'm not alone in feeling this way. I know that. So in the lead-up to the booms and the colorful firework bursts and the barbecues, to the noise and sweat and the dull roar of chatter from family and friends, find your own patriotism. Speak loudly. Stand strong. And believe you have it in you to make a change. Even if it's just throwing up a middle finger to the bastards forcing us to feel like America is upside down. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Was Iran close to developing a nuclear weapon? Who cares
We wanted to know what you thought about all this. So, we asked. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Hundreds of readers wrote in for this installment of USA TODAY's Opinion Forum, sharing their opinions from across the country and political spectrum. Here's what they said. Trump is immoral and unsuitable for office. But bombing Iran was right. The air strikes were the right decision. Iran cannot be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. We should believe its leaders when they say "Death to America." I should also mention that I normally vote Republican, but I've never voted for Donald Trump. I believe him to be an immoral, intemperate man unsuited for any public office. Presidents have been ordering military actions without congressional authorization for some time. However, that doesn't make it right. Still, as divided as Congress is, I don't believe he would have gotten the green light and we very much needed to act. Further retaliation by Iran is always a possibility. One has to know that once the act is completed, the other side may retaliate. Sometimes, however, the risk must be taken. While the U.S. intelligence community said Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon, the intelligence community has been wrong before. Trump is going to do whatever he wants to do. He is a bit of a loose cannon. -- Kevin O'Grady, Columbus, Ohio Trump said he'd think about it for 2 weeks, then bombs! I do not think Trump made the right decision in bombing three Iranian nuclear sites. There was no emergency and no reason to do it. He said on June 19 he was going to consider it for two weeks and then, two days later, bombs! He has no idea what that little stunt costs - to deploy those types of weapons. He did it to show that he was powerful enough to do it. He has no idea what could result from it. He is an ignoramus! I think the fact that he acted on his own, without authorization from Congress, is a good reason to impeach him. He has already walked all over Congress and the court systems, doing things he does not have the authority to do. He should be impeached. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ You can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. In terms of him saying Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, the U.S. intelligence community said otherwise. I think Trump is dumb and has no idea what the truth is. I am slightly concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities or the possibility of them receiving nuclear weapons from an ally. And I am slightly concerned about the threat of nuclear war. -- Diane Whitlock, Waynesville, North Carolina Iran strikes are better than kumbaya attitudes in Congress I absolutely think Trump made the right decision in bombing the Iranian nuclear sites. Iran and many other bad state actors, and their proxies, represent existential threats to the U.S. Bad behavior must not be tolerated. We are neither empire building, nor are we regime changing in our defensive actions. I'm not in the least concerned about Trump ordering the strikes without congressional authorization. He was elected by a majority of American voters to stop the passive, kumbaya attitudes prevailing in the White House and Congress. Congress needs term limits, because the polarization is cause and effect of lobbyists being catalysts for wealth and power acquisition through longer seniority. As for the intelligence community's different assessment than Trump about how close Iran was to developing a nuclear weapon, who cares? When your public posture and oft-stated goals are the destruction of America, the degree of "close to having" is a euphemism for panty waists to wring their hands and experience angst until it's not close, but NOW. -- Robert Jarrard, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts Israel goaded Trump into military action This administration is the least equipped to make complex foreign policy decisions than any other one in this history of the U.S. At least in the first Trump administration there were some competent Cabinet officers and advisers, but now there is nobody to stop him from his worst impulses. Israel very effectively goaded Trump into this war action and it helped Trump domestically, at least in the short run, by taking attention away from his low approval ratings, the unlawful immigration raids, the protests and the lack of any tariff deals. It concerns me that Trump did not get congressional approval before the strikes. There was no urgency or exigency to having to make this decision. Even though the GOP Congress might well have rubber-stamped his decision, Trump is taking every avenue to consolidate his executive power, and Congress is aiding and abetting this by not asserting its constitutional rights. Iran has already performatively fired missiles at U.S. military installations in Qatar, with pre-warning. The supreme leader of Iran has to save face, and this might well be enough for him. I am more concerned that Trump is a loose cannon, and if he feels that his power is slipping he will escalate this to try to get a "rally round the flag" approval bump. In short, I simply do not trust him to act in the best interest of anyone but himself, certainly not in the interest of the American people. Israel has a vested interest in making it seem like a nuclear weapon is imminent. I believe the U.S. intelligence community on this. Trump notoriously refuses to hear briefings or pay any attention to actual facts, but instead relies on "his instincts," which are basically messages from Fox News. -- Patricia Gotschalk, Wailuku, Hawaii Limits on bombing helped make it acceptable I do think President Trump made the right decision in bombing the three Iranian nuclear sites. It seems like it was limited in scope to only neutralizing the nuclear threats. And I'm not concerned about him acting on his own presidential authority, without authorization from Congress. There's a long history of presidents launching attacks like this one. As for additional retaliation by Iran, I'm not concerned because it's too far away and it's not a military power. With Trump's disagreement with the the U.S. intelligence community about whether Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, I think its nuclear program exceeds civilian use. Why have it secluded in the mountains unless it's to weaponize it? And while I'm slightly concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities and the possibility it could receive nuclear weapons from an ally, I'm not at all concerned about the threat of nuclear war. -- Scott Forrester, Phoenix, Arizona
