Waffle House drops egg surcharge: Are egg prices going down? What to know in Alabama
The diner chain announced on July 1 that its dropping an egg surcharge put in place four months ago, signaling a decline in egg prices from the all-time highs seen earlier this year.
"Egg-cellent news…as of June 2, the egg surcharge is officially off the menu," said the post. "Thanks for understanding!"
USA TODAY reached out to Waffle House to confirm the change.
Waffle House has dozens of locations in Alabama, including 15 in the Montgomery area, eight in the Tuscaloosa area, and four in the Gadsden area. Click here to find a store near you.
Why was Waffle House charging extra for eggs?
A 50-cent per egg surcharge was implemented at Waffle House's roughly 2,100 locations across the U.S. in early February to offset higher-than-usual prices resulting from a "continuing egg shortage caused by HPAI (Bird Flu)," the company said at the time.
Waffle House serves around 272 million eggs per year, according to its website, well surpassing even its titular waffles, of which it sells just 124 million. The temporary charge was employed to avoid increasing prices across other menu items, it said.
Are egg prices are down?
Egg prices reached a high of roughly $6.22 per dozen on average in March, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The stage for this uptick was set when the current bird flu outbreak began in the U.S. in 2022 and the highly pathogenic avian influenza, or bird flu, killed off egg-laying poultry en masse, leaving fewer chickens behind to maintain the supply.
By Feb. 3, when Waffle House implemented its surcharge, the virus had infected roughly 150 million poultry across all 50 states since January 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Because of the spread, infected birds have been selectively slaughtered across the U.S., including sometimes millions of birds at a single location.
Why are egg prices falling? Here's what we know.
Egg prices have begun to ease from the highs earlier this year, but their overall prices are still 40% higher than last year, according to the May Consumer Price Index.
"Families are seeing relief with egg prices driving food deflation," U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins said in a June 26 statement about the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) response to bird flu. "While we are proud that over 900 biosecurity assessments have been conducted to date, resources remain available, and we are urging poultry farmers of all sizes to get your assessments done today before a potentially challenging fall.'
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Waffle House drops egg surcharge: Are prices down? What to know in AL
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
6 minutes ago
- USA Today
Youth sports business model hurts kids. New poll shows parents are fed up.
Parents want a youth sports system that prioritizes childhood development, family balance and accessibility. From the WNBA All-Star Game to the British Open Championship, sports fans had ample opportunities to see elite athletes in action this past weekend. Many of those watching are children with dreams of their own athletic success. Youth sports is a $40 billion a year industry with tens of millions of American kids participating in baseball, basketball, football, golf, soccer and other athletic competitions. Emphasis on the word 'industry.' There is much more to the competitiveness than participation alone. In recent years, youth sports have attracted unprecedented investments from private equity giants, family foundations and other entities, whether it means buying a baseball camp or building a flag football field. Youth sports have become a big business Sky-high investments are creating entire youth leagues from scratch, attracting boys and girls as a rite of passage. This is not our parents' youth sports system, where local offshoots of Little League Baseball and Pop Warner reigned supreme. It is an entirely new ecosystem, bringing big bucks and forcing many families to pay up. Where kids see a (slim) chance to turn pro one day, there is also (cautious) optimism about a return on investment via college scholarships or name, image and likeness checks. But the investment itself is not cheap. The average U.S. sports family spends more than $1,000 on a child's primary sport − a 46% increase since 2019. Then there are the second and third sports − more scratches on the lottery ticket. For growing numbers of parents and kids, the feeling is stress, stress and more stress. According to new research from The Harris Poll, conducted for USA TODAY, parents overwhelmingly want youth sports to promote balance, character and inclusion. Instead, they're navigating a high-pressure, high-cost system that serves a select few, at the expense of kids who are thrust into high-stakes situations at a young age. The numbers don't lie. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of parents say their child's sports team travels more than necessary − a burden that hits time-strapped, lower-income families especially hard. Almost 8 in 10 parents support reducing travel, while 72% want a model with fewer games and more practice. A similar percentage (73%) say youth sports have lost sight of their original purpose: Fostering fun and teaching teamwork. Parents are not delusional. Only 8% of parents claim that the goal of youth sports should be a college scholarship, while just 12% say it means preparing for a pro career. Nearly 9 in 10 parents (89%) believe that it is important for their child to enjoy playing sports. And yet, the youth sports ecosystem − now driven by private equity − often behaves as if celebrity status and monetary gain are the primary goals. Just ask parents, 61% of whom believe that youth sports organizations prioritize profit over purpose. Even more (63%) feel that sports-related costs and time demands undermine the spirit of play. While most parents are realistic about their kids' long-term prospects in sports, they will continue to make sacrifices for them to participate − from missing work to skipping family vacations. What they need in return is a youth sports ecosystem that better suits their time and budget constraints. Youth sports puts strains on family life The ever-growing commercialization of the early specialization in sports has a wide range of consequences, including academic strain and stress on the family unit. Our need to 'keep up with the Joneses' can be a challenge for entire communities navigating a high-stakes environment, as yet another mega-sports complex pops up down the road. For the sake of kids, parents are calling for a reset. They don't want to see a broken youth sports system. What they want is an ecosystem that prioritizes childhood development, family balance and accessibility at a time when finances are already pulled in too many directions. The status quo is serving a select few who could one day become WNBA All-Stars or major championship winners in golf. But what about the rest of America's sports families? The system may not be broken for the few, but it's looking more and more so for most. Will Johnson serves as CEO at The Harris Poll.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
GM's $1.1 billion tariff hit bolsters mounting evidence that Americans are the ones footing the bill for Trump's import taxes
had a more than $1 billion chunk taken out of its profits due to tariff costs, the company reported on Tuesday. GM, as well as other automakers like Stellantis, have contributed to evidence indicating American companies and consumers—not exporters—are the ones paying for tariffs. General Motors is the latest U.S. auto giant to say tariffs have taken a chunk from their earnings. The company beat earnings expectations on Tuesday, but reported a decline in second-quarter profits, including a $1.1 billion hit as a result of hefty import taxes. GM reported a 2% dip in sales to $47 billion, as well as $1.9 billion in quarterly profits, compared to $2.9 billion in the same period last year. Anticipating the impact of President Donald Trump's auto tariff policy—which outlined a 25% levy for many imported vehicles—GM withdrew its annual guidance last quarter, predicting an up to $5 billion pummelling from the levies. The company announced last month plans to invest $4 billion in domestic manufacturing plants in order to offset the cost of imports, as well as increase production capacity. Still, GM's reliance on compact cars made in South Korea has made it vulnerable to the levies. 'In addition to our strong underlying operating performance, we are positioning the business for a profitable, long-term future as we adapt to new trade and tax policies, and a rapidly evolving tech landscape,' CEO Mary Barra wrote in a letter to shareholders on Tuesday. GM's rival Stellantis, which owns Jeep and Ram Trucks among other brands, announced on Monday $2.7 billion in net losses for the first half of the year as North American sales continued to slump. Those struggles were exacerbated by the 'early effects of U.S. tariffs,' according to Stellantis, which had a more than $350 million negative impact on the company. America is eating tariff costs The auto companies' tariff hit reinforced concerns—and emerging evidence—that Americans are the ones footing the bill for Trump's sweeping tariff policy. Despite the U.S. Treasury collecting a record-setting $100 billion in customs duties so far this year, there has not been a meaningful reduction in the price of imported goods indicating exporters absorbing increased costs on their ends, according to a Deutsche Bank analyst note published on Monday. Instead, import prices have remained steady through June. 'The top-down macroevidence seems clear: Americans are mostly paying for the tariffs,' Deutsche Bank analyst George Saravelos said in the note. Saravelos posited that because the Consumer Price Index has so far indicated only modest levels of inflation, 'it follows that American importers are mostly absorbing the tariffs into their profit margins.' The phenomenon is exemplified by Stellantis and GM eating billions in tariff costs. Auto tariffs are no exception Bernstein senior analyst Daniel Roeska said auto companies have started to exhaust their strategy of absorbing tariff costs into their own margins as car prices are poised to skyrocket later this year. 'There are only two people who can pay for [tariffs]: either the shareholders or the consumer,' Roeska told Fortune. 'And in the end, there's going to be some sharing between those two halves. And so our view has been and continues to be that prices for cars are going to push up in the second half.' There's already indications American consumers will be the next to take the tariff punch. Car companies are beginning to roll back discounts and incentives implemented months earlier to boost sales, as evidenced by Ford Motors switching away from its employee discount plan for prospective buyers in favor of a $0 down and 0% interest or financing plan. While GM's plan to move some manufacturing to the U.S. will help the company save on tariff and transport costs, it will also incur steeper labor costs. The strategic move is a good one, according to Roeska, but it illustrates that companies will largely encounter trade offs when it comes to managing the inevitable impacts of tariffs. 'There's not much you can do,' Roeska said. 'If the policy is to put tariffs on cars, then that will increase the cost of cars, and ultimately, that will likely increase the price of cars.' This story was originally featured on
Time Magazine
12 hours ago
- Time Magazine
The Surprising Reason Your Groceries Are More Expensive
There's a connection between what you are seeing outside your window and what you are seeing in your grocery store, experts say. Both extreme weather and food costs have been on the rise in recent years. The Consumer Price Index, or CPI, showed, inflation overall rose 2.7% in June from a year earlier, as tomatoes, eggs, and coffee have all seen significant increases. During the same period, the country has battled record heat, hurricanes, and dangerous flooding. Research suggests it's more than just coincidence that the price increases and weather extremes are coming together. A report published Monday in the journal Environmental Research Letters shows how extreme weather events is correlated to specific food price spikes in the immediate aftermath. Food yield being affected by weather is a tale as old as agriculture, but researchers in the study map how climate change has exacerbated extreme weather events, and is directly correlated to specific food price surges. In fact, researchers name food prices as the second-biggest way climate change is currently being felt across the globe, second to only extreme heat itself. The results of these food price spikes can be devastating, especially for lower-income consumers who spend more of their income on food than the average consumer. Increasing grocery prices have been a major issue on consumers' minds, and were a significant factor in the 2024 election. Two-thirds of Americans say they are very concerned about these costs, according to an April Pew Research Center survey. Though experts say there are other compounding factors related to the rising prices, the report notes that unexpected extreme climate conditions and their effects on crop yield cannot be understated. 'The unprecedented nature of many of the climate conditions behind recent food price spikes highlights the ongoing threats to food security as climate change continues to push societies towards ever less familiar climate conditions,' write the researchers, led by Maximilian Kotz, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. 'While the 2023/24 El Ninõ likely played a role in amplifying a number of these extremes, their increased intensity and frequency is in line with the expected and observed effects of climate change.' Unprecedented weather affects crop yields The study maps 16 specific extreme weather events since 2022 that have impacted food yields, immediately raising the prices of crops that were not able to be harvested. In 2022, for example, droughts across California and Arizona contributed to a 80% year-on-year increase in U.S. vegetable prices by the end of the year, the study found—an impact compounded by the fact that California accounts for over 40% of the country's vegetable production. Weather extremes outside the country have also affected prices: 2023 droughts in Mexico, it showed, contributed to a 20% price increase in vegetables the following January; droughts in Brazil have raised coffee prices 55% globally; and heatwaves in Japan contributed to a 48% raise in rice prices in the fall of 2024. These heatwaves and droughts were 'unprecedented' researchers say, and were felt deeply. David Ortega, food economist and professor at Michigan State University, says it is important to note that climate change does not just impact weather via heat and drought, though. 'It's not just drought, it's floods, it's hurricanes. It can be even colder temperatures that disrupt crops or freeze and frost that are earlier or later than the normal that affect agricultural production,' Ortega, who is not connected to the study, tells TIME. He points to citrus production in Florida, which was heavily impacted by the major hurricanes that hit the state hard in 2024. The study specifically cites the United Kingdom as an example, in which 'wet winters' contributed to an over 22% increase in potato prices. '[Price increases are] being felt right away, because food is perishable. You can store some—a lot of the fruits and vegetables in Mexico tend to be frozen—but a lot of stuff is shipped fresh, and the stuff that is shipped fresh is going to be reflected in the price right away,' says Marc Bellemare, professor of economics at the University of Minnesota. 'Food markets are reasonably integrated.' Andrew Hultgren, assistant professor of agricultural and consumer economics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, says that these extreme weather events particularly impact farmers in 'small locations that grow a majority of the world's supply of some crop,' as the study also notes. He points specifically to the study's example of Ghana and the Ivory Coast, where 60 percent of the world's cocoa is produced. The study links 'unprecedented' temperatures in the region in February 2024 to an increase in global market prices of cocoa of around 300% by that April. 'Corn has grown all over the world, right? So if you have a bad corn season somewhere … it'll be smoothed by somewhere else that will probably be having a relatively good season,' Hultgren says. 'If most of your production is in one location, you don't get that spatial smoothing,' he continues, noting the intensity of particular price increases in these instances. Exacerbating inequalities and inflation The research also notes that food instability and extreme weather could stoke more political instability and inflation, with the world's poor bearing most of the economic pain and health impacts. Bellemare emphasizes that these food price spikes will be felt most by low-income people, who spend a more significant portion of their income on food than the average American. 'The average U.S. household spends about 10% of its budget on food. It is much higher for low income households,' he says. 'I worry more about the distributional consequences than I worry about the geographic consequences.' Hultgren stresses that shifting food prices change the value of the aid low-income Americans receive through programs like SNAP as well. 'That means that the value of food aid, if it's noted in monetary terms, is fluctuating for you as a family, and that does add unpredictability in the finances of a poor family and that variability can just make decisions on other expenditures more difficult,' he says. Hultgren also points out that these inequalities will be felt differently in different countries. For those in Europe and America, the price increases will feel like inflation, he says, but they will be 'an even bigger problem in developing and poorer parts of the world.' Experts note that climate change is just one of a confluence of factors that are all coalescing to affect both supply and demand of food products, and leading to rising food prices. Ortega specifically points to 2022, when he says there was 'the highest increase in food prices in a generation.' He says that the impact of the war in Ukraine must be noted—but the effect of climate change compounded supply chain disruptions and inflation problems. The research paper also notes that food price increases are leading to increased headline inflation. 'Central bank mandates for price stability may become increasingly challenging to deliver if more frequent extreme weather events make food prices less stable domestically and in global markets,' the paper observes. 'These challenges may be magnified if persistent temperature increases cause a sustained upward pressure on inflation or inflation volatility results in lower credibility and a de-anchoring of inflation expectation.' Looking at the future Ortega conducts research on how 'shocks,' like the COVID-19 pandemic or Russia's invasion of Ukraine, affect the agri-food business and impact consumers. Many of these shocks are temporary, Ortega says, though their effects may be intensely felt. The impacts of climate change, however, have only just begun. 'Work like this that shows the impact of climate change on food prices really brings to the surface what I see as one of the significant threats that our food system faces going into the future,' Ortega. 'Climate events and adverse weather that are driven by climate change are increasing in frequency, and that's only going to continue going into the future.' The researchers note in the study that their work is a 'a reminder of the urgency to enact policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming in line with globally agreed targets.' Further, though, they state that mitigations like early warning systems and "timely information on climate conditions' can help farmers limit their exposure and impact to certain extreme events. 'We're not unresponsive in the face of climate change,' Bellemare says. 'There's a lot of adaptation going on. There's insurance products that are being rolled out to those farmers. Everyone's adapting either in terms of production or in terms of financial instruments to kind of insure themselves or hedge against those things.' Some of this adaptation can also be done in farmers' decision-making, Hultgren says, noting farmers can choose to plant more if they know prices are rising, can 'think about what the price history has been for the crops that they can plant,' and can consider the forecast for the coming season. But to make those decisions, he says, information must be available and research conducted. 'If we cut information out of the picture, if we don't provide information about how weather distributions are shifting, how we think they're going to shift in the future, what they think the seasonal forecast for farmers [is] ... that potentially has negative consequences for the ability to for agents to just adapt,' Hultgren says. Ortega notes that weather can be extremely hard to predict, especially fast-moving weather events like floods or hurricanes. And on that front, Ortega says that the government does not seem to be moving in the direction of progress. 'That's one area that I'm highly concerned about, given a lot of the funding cuts at the federal level in the United States, at the moment,' he says. 'We need to be investing to ensure that we have the best science and technology in order to develop those drought resistant varieties, solvent varieties of crops, and ensure that our producers and producers around the world have the best tools needed in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change on their operations.'
