According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the cost of beef and veal rose nearly 14 percent year-over-year in August
Pam Lewison
Washington Policy Center
Trying to “fix” the cost of beef is anti-agriculture and anti-free market. The president recently suggested the United States would purchase beef from Argentina to flood the American market and drive the cost of U.S. beef down.
This plan is absurd.
The comments came over the weekend while the president was flying from Florida to Washington D.C., according to several reports. The plan to drive down the cost of American beef prices by purchasing Argentinian beef and dropping it into the American market has sparked outrage since the news broke.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the cost of beef and veal rose nearly 14 percent year-over-year in August. However, new research indicates the true cost of beef to consumers is not reflected in grocery store prices because it does not account for in-store discounts or weekly sales.
Additionally, it is worth noting American ranchers are a rare bright spot in the agricultural economy at the moment. Median farm income is forecast to increase from -$1,830 in 2024 to -$1,189 in 2025, thanks to an increase in take-home pay from off-farm income. Farm sector debt is also forecast to increase in 2025 to a total of $591.8 billion, between real estate and non-real estate debt combined.
Beef has maintained its value because the current national herd is the smallest it has been in more than 70 years because of increased demand and continued high prices. The stability of the beef market in recent times has made up for the volatility of the rest of the agricultural sector, where commodity prices are depressed by poor trade relations with our three biggest trade partners – China, Mexico, and Canada – and high yielding harvests, which have created a commodity surplus.
Finally, it is worth noting that beef is not the only protein available on the market. There are cuts of beef and recipes for virtually any budget. However, if beef simply seems out of reach based on per pound price, there are meats like pork and chicken which are readily available for less cost per pound.
There are no “quick fixes” to the cost of beef because there are no fixes needed. Flooding the U.S. market with lesser priced beef from another country under-cuts American producers and undermines free market principles. The free market espouses minimizing government interference and allowing supply and demand to dictate the cost of goods. The plan proposed by the president is in direct conflict with both the free market and American ranchers. The best plan in this instance is to let the market continue to run its course.
Pam Lewison is the director of the Center for Agriculture at the Washington Policy Center.
- Opinion: Why lawmakers are going after your pension
Ryan Frost argues lawmakers included public pensions in the income tax law in preparation for lowering the $1 million deduction. - Opinion: Washington has an income tax – why won’t the media call it one?
Cargill argues the media is using supporters’ preferred label “millionaires tax” instead of the legally accurate term “income tax.” - POLL: How do you think higher impact fees for school districts affect housing affordability in Clark County?
Clark County Council raised impact fees for La Center, Hockinson, and Woodland school districts, drawing pushback from the Building Industry Association. - Opinion: Impaired walking vs. impaired driving; pick neither
Doug Dahl argues impaired driving remains deadlier than walking impaired when measured by exposure time, not miles traveled. - Opinion: When the same money helps fund the program and the story
Peter Bracchi examines how the Ed and Dollie Lynch Fund supports Vancouver’s HART program, the Bridge Shelter, and Community Funded Journalism covering the same policy arena.