It didn’t take long to see the reaction. Rather than accept the court’s limits on his authority, President Trump pivoted immediately, criticizing the ruling and announcing new tariffs under a different statute, with hints that rates could rise further — a response entirely consistent with his brand.

Some pundits rushed to claim the decision was a humiliation. That is nonsense. If anything, the ruling handed President Trump an opportunity to inject even more uncertainty into global markets. A Supreme Court endorsement of the original tariffs would have created a predictable — if unpleasant — framework. Predictability allows businesses to adjust. What we now face instead is fluidity. And fluidity, in trade policy, is far more destabilizing.

Canada conducts roughly $100 billion a year in agri-food trade with the United States, with close to two-thirds of our food exports heading south. This is not simple trade — it is integration.

Cattle and hogs cross the border for feeding and processing. Canola is crushed in Canada and enters the U.S. as oil and meal. Processed foods depend on American ingredients, machinery and distribution networks. Hundreds of millions of dollars in food products move across the border every single day. When Washington experiments with tariff authority, that uncertainty moves directly from farm gate to grocery shelf.

Even before the Supreme Court’s ruling, many Canadian food businesses exporting non-CUSMA compliant products were forced to reduce their prices simply to remain competitive in the U.S. market. American buyers facing tariff costs could easily switch to domestic alternatives. To preserve contracts and shelf space, Canadian exporters absorbed part of the tariff burden themselves.

That meant thinner margins, delayed investments, and in some cases postponed expansion plans. Tariffs do not just tax goods — they compress profitability.

Risk remains

Even if CUSMA-compliant goods remain exempt for now, trade risk has not disappeared. A product can be technically tariff-free and still face higher input costs, stricter border scrutiny, currency volatility and contract renegotiations.

In a deeply integrated $100-billion food corridor, uncertainty alone raises wholesale costs — and wholesale costs eventually reach consumers. Food prices in Canada can move without a single tariff being formally applied.

Looking ahead to the CUSMA review, the environment has rarely looked more delicate. President Trump could threaten to dismantle the trilateral framework and pursue bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico separately. The threat itself would be a powerful negotiating tactic.

In practice, fully tearing up CUSMA would be economically disruptive and politically complex, especially given the degree of North American integration in agri-food. More likely, bilateralization would serve as leverage rather than destination. But with this week’s rapid pivot, complacency would be naïve.

In Ottawa, restraint will matter. Escalating with new counter-tariffs to “punish” the Americans would only ricochet back onto Canadian grocery bills, as we have already seen. In the current environment, discipline — not bravado — will determine whether Canadian consumers ultimately pay the price.

The post Trade uncertainty is back on the Canadian national menu appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Since 2019, the number of recalls in Canada has jumped dramatically — from fewer than 50 in 2018 to well over 200 in some years. In 2025 alone, we have already crossed the 130 mark.

For consumers, the message may feel alarming. For industry, the headlines can be reputationally damaging. But the reality is far more nuanced: more recalls are not necessarily a sign of less food safety. In fact, they tell us our food system is working better than ever.

The turning point came in 2019 with the introduction of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR). These new rules tightened oversight, required stronger traceability and gave the Canadian Food Inspection Agency sharper tools to monitor and enforce compliance. Before then, recalls were sporadic and sometimes quietly managed between companies and regulators. With the SFCR, systematic reporting became mandatory, transparency for consumers was increased and accountability for industry was heightened.

That is why the 2019 chart looks like a cliff: the law fundamentally changed the way Canada handles risk.

The rise in recalls since then can be explained by several forces acting at once. Stricter allergen and labeling requirements mean that even small mistakes, such as an undeclared trace of milk or peanuts, can trigger a nationwide recall. Globalized supply chains bring in more products from more countries, expanding the chances of contamination or mislabelling. Advances in food science, from genomic sequencing to improved laboratory testing, have made it easier to detect pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella. And unlike in the past, when certain issues may have been contained quietly, recalls are now systematically announced online, on social media and through national alerts, ensuring Canadians are quickly informed.

More recalls often mean that risks are being identified earlier, before they cause widespread illness. A rise in recalls is, in many ways, an indicator of a system that is proactive rather than reactive. Each recall still represents a failure somewhere in the chain — yet the fact that these problems are identified and made public speaks to greater vigilance, not less.

What is often forgotten is that Canada consistently ranks at the very top of the world in food safety. Canada is currently No. 1 when it comes to food safety standards, according to the Global Food Security Index. The paradox is that while Canada is seen as a global leader, the steady stream of recall headlines risks eroding confidence at home.

Looking ahead, artificial intelligence (AI) could reshape how recalls unfold. AI systems are already being tested to monitor supply chains in real time, flagging anomalies in labelling, packaging and ingredient sourcing before products even reach the market. With machine learning analyzing vast amounts of inspection data, recalls could become more targeted, faster and, in some cases, unnecessary because the problem is intercepted upstream.

At the same time, AI’s growing role in surveillance could increase the number of recalls in the short term as hidden risks are uncovered with far greater precision than ever before.

Whether AI reduces or inflates the number of recalls will depend on how regulators and industry integrate the technology: as a shield to prevent problems from arising, or as a microscope that exposes every flaw, however small.

Sylvain Charlebois is director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food ProfessorPodcast and visiting scholar at McGill University. This article has been edited for length.

The post Artificial intelligence could cut down food recalls — or make them explode appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

His first week in office signaled a more data-driven, technocratic approach—grounded in pragmatism rather than ideology. That’s welcome news, especially for Canada’s agri-food sector, which has long been overlooked.

Historically, the Liberal Party has governed with an urban-centric lens, often sidelining agriculture. That must change. Carney’s pledge to eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers by July 1 was encouraging — but whether this includes long-standing obstacles in the agri-food sector remains to be seen. Supply-managed sectors, particularly dairy, remain heavily protected by a tangle of provincially administered quotas that limit flexibility, stifle innovation, and restrict national productivity.

Consider dairy. Quebec produces nearly 40 per cent of Canada’s milk, despite accounting for just over 20 per cent of the population.

This regional imbalance undermines one of supply management’s original promises: preserving dairy farms across the country. In reality, the number of dairy farms continues to decline, with roughly 90 per cent now concentrated in just a few provinces — mirroring patterns in the U.S., where there is no federal supply management system.

On our current path, Canada is projected to lose nearly half of its remaining dairy farms by 2030 — even with supply management in place. Consolidation is accelerating, and it disproportionately benefits Quebec and Ontario at the expense of smaller producers in the Prairies and Atlantic Canada.

Prime Minister Carney must put dairy reform back on the table, regardless of campaign promises. The dairy sector represents just one per cent of Canada’s GDP, yet its outsized influence on policy continues to distort economic priorities — benefiting fewer than 9,000 farms out of more than 175,000 nationwide.

This is not sustainable. Many Canadian producers are eager to grow, trade, and compete globally, but are held back by a system that prioritizes insulation over opportunity.

It’s also time to decouple dairy from poultry and eggs, which — though also supply-managed — operate with far more vertical integration and competitiveness. Industrial milk prices in Canada are nearly double those in the U.S., undermining both our domestic processors and consumer affordability.

The upcoming renegotiation of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement is a chance to reset. Rather than resist change, the dairy sector should seize the opportunity to modernize. Reforms could include a more open quota system for export markets, and a complete overhaul of the Canadian Dairy Commission to increase transparency around pricing.

Canadians deserve to know how much milk is wasted each year — estimated at up to a billion litres — and whether a strategic reserve for powdered milk (much like our existing butter reserve) would better serve national food security.

Global milk demand is rising. According to The Dairy News, the world could face a shortage of 30 million tonnes by 2030 — three times Canada’s current annual production. Yet under current policy, Canada is not positioned to contribute meaningfully to meeting that demand. The domestic focus on protecting margins and internal price fairness is blinding the sector to the broader market realities.

We’ve been here before. The last time CUSMA was renegotiated, Canada offered modest concessions to foreign competitors and then overcompensated its dairy sector for hypothetical losses.

This created an overcapitalized industry, inflated farmland prices, and diverted attention from more pressing trade and diplomacy challenges—particularly with India and China.

If Prime Minister Carney is serious about rebooting the Canadian economy, agri-food must be part of the conversation. But that means agriculture itself must step up. Industry voices across the country need to call on dairy to evolve, embrace change, and step into the 21st century.

Sylvain Charlebois is the director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The FoodProfessor Podcast.

The post Canadian dairy needs winds of change appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In choosing to retaliate against United States protectionism with formal counter-tariffs, Canada now finds itself aligned with China as one of only two countries to pursue such measures. While these actions may serve domestic political optics, they are inflicting measurable and lasting harm on Canada’s food manufacturing ecosystem.

Tariffs on U.S. food ingredients and critical inputs such as food-grade aluminum and steel are rippling through the supply chain. Large multinational processors often have the ability to absorb or deflect these added costs, passing them on to dominant grocery retailers like Loblaws, Sobeys, and Metro. Those grocers, in turn, push the increases to consumers. The result is a persistent layer of food price inflation that is now entrenched across many product categories.

But the deepest strain is being felt by Canada’s smaller, regionally based food manufacturers — the vast network of family-owned processors and local businesses that make up the core of this sector. These firms operate with tighter margins, limited purchasing power, and few options for substituting inputs. Many are now facing cost increases of 15 to 25 per cent on specific goods — levels that can jeopardize their viability.

Although Ottawa claims that mechanisms exist to offset these tariff impacts, the design of the system largely excludes the very firms it is meant to protect. Most smaller processors don’t import directly; they purchase ingredients through distributors and brokers, who are registered as the importers of record. Consequently, any rebates or tariff refunds are routed to intermediaries, not the manufacturers actually absorbing the higher costs. Federal guidelines often classify end-users in ways that further disqualify small manufacturers from receiving support. This is what we are hearing from food manufacturers.

If a food manufacturer isn’t both the importer of record and the end-user, it’s out of luck — effectively excluding hundreds of food processors across the country.

The policy design here reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how Canada’s food supply chain actually works. Expecting small processors to negotiate retroactive relief from intermediaries — some of whom are foreign-owned — is both impractical and naive. Encouraging them to “source elsewhere” ignores ingredient-specific dependencies that cannot be easily replicated outside the U.S.

The downstream effects are already emerging: reduced innovation, diminished product variety, and fewer new entrants in the market. With less competition and more reliance on imports, Canada’s food sovereignty erodes — and the system becomes more fragile.

This isn’t about whether Canada should take a stand in trade disputes. It’s about choosing tools that don’t quietly undermine our own economic foundation. Trade tensions with the U.S. — a country that accounts for roughly one-quarter of global gross domestic product — require more than performative gestures. They demand smart, targeted policy informed by rigorous economic analysis.

Canada’s independent processors are the backbone of our food manufacturing base. If they are forced out of the market by blunt instruments like counter-tariffs, the cost will be borne not just by business owners, but by consumers — through higher prices, fewer choices, and a diminished capacity to feed ourselves.

Sylvain Charlebois is a senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

The post Counter tariffs hurting Canada’s food economy appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

While there is no evidence of dumping, the facts are largely irrelevant in this case. China will proceed with sanctions regardless of the explanations provided by the Canola Council of Canada or Canadian diplomatic channels. Much like in 2019, when Canada faced a similar impasse, we could see borders close again for Canadian agricultural exports.

In March 2019, after the arrest of Meng Wanzhou in the Huawei incident, China abruptly halted Canadian canola shipments, citing pest contamination as the official reason. The Canadian canola industry suffered estimated losses between $1.54-$2.35 billion in sales, with price declines persisting until August 2020 due to the suspended export licences.

Pork exports were also affected, but canola has always been a primary target for China in these diplomatic standoffs.

Canola holds a special place in Canada’s agricultural identity, and targeting it first is a calculated move by China. The crop was developed in Canada and, as the world’s largest exporter, Canada plays a pivotal role in both global food markets and biofuel production. Conversely, China is the largest oilseed importer, with half of Canada’s canola exports destined for its market.

By hitting canola, China sends a clear message: it can disrupt a key Canadian sector anytime political tensions escalate.

Prairie farmers are already feeling the impact. Canola prices immediately dropped nearly five per cent, and further declines could mirror the prolonged downturn of 2019.

Western Canadian farmers now face significant uncertainty, largely a result of Ottawa’s aggressive push to bolster the battery and electric vehicle sectors. The federal government has committed nearly $50 billion toward building battery factories, a bold gamble that led to the imposition of tariffs on Chinese EVs.

The official rationale, it seems, is to protect domestic manufacturers from an influx of cheaper green vehicles from China, even if that means limiting affordable options for Canadian consumers and straining relations with China. This approach prioritizes the development of Canadian-made EVs over the potential benefits of allowing lower-cost imports to help reduce carbon emissions.

This industrial strategy follows a familiar pattern: When a government decides that a product must be produced domestically, at all costs, it often results in less competition, higher prices and questionable product quality.

The dairy industry offers a prime example. Ottawa has funneled billions into the sector, supported by highly restrictive trade barriers. While this policy has propped up dairy farmers, it has done so at the expense of other agricultural sectors — wheat, canola, beef and pork — all of which could arguably benefit from the same level of government support.

In the end, the federal government will likely compensate canola farmers for their losses, as it has done before. Farmers are resilient, but Canada’s diplomatic standing, particularly with China, continues to erode.

The post Ottawa charging ahead leaves canola in the dust appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Following months of farmer protests across Europe, the Green Party, previously the fourth largest party, lost 19 seats and slipped to sixth position in the EU Parliament. This shift suggests that Europeans are increasingly eager for Europe to compete against China and the United States to bolster its economy.

The political upheaval was particularly pronounced in France. President Emmanuel Macron called for snap elections for the National Assembly. Belgium’s president has resigned. Germany is experiencing similar turbulence, with the Social Democrats seeing support erode.

The farmers’ revolt, peaking in January and February, has affected most EU members. This uprising is fueled by escalating production costs, foreign competition, declining incomes, environmental restrictions, and onerous administrative procedures. In essence, amid turmoil, it seems farmers’ voices have finally been heard.

From a food security standpoint, the situation in Europe is deteriorating. Extreme agricultural policies that empower the state to control farming have rendered Europe less food secure. The results of the EU election will have a profound impact on the continent’s future food security.

Farmers have been burdened by bureaucratic policies and restrictive regulations. Government oversight has reached extremes, with satellite images being used to monitor compliance, triggering automatic notifications if discrepancies are detected.

Even before the election, the EU Parliament was under pressure. Facing mounting tension, several environmental regulations, including pesticide rules, were either diluted or repealed. This relaxation of green objectives may indicate a broader trend with the new parliament.

We have witnessed a significant shift in regulatory approaches in Europe, causing the continent to retreat from exports and focus on self-sufficiency. For instance, Europe’s pork production, one of the world’s most popular animal proteins, is down by three million tonnes from 2021. Grain production is also languishing, making it increasingly difficult to feed livestock.

The EU projects that overall cereal production this season will be 4.3 per cent below the five-year average, due to adverse weather conditions but also because farmers feel unsupported and lack incentives. Europe’s struggles have created opportunities for Brazilian and American producers, who are now targeting markets previously served by Europe. Canada should follow suit.

While the United States views Europe’s self-inflicted food insecurity as a chance to expand its market reach, Canada seems enamoured with European-style, urban-centric agri-food policies. The EU’s experience serves as a critical case study for Canada on what not to do.

Undermining farmers and disregarding their expertise is not only reckless but also perilous for citizens and the economy. For effective environmental stewardship, governments must prioritize farmers’ insights. Their knowledge is invaluable, surpassing that of vocal NGOs and federally funded entities like the Canadian Climate Institute or the Smart Prosperity Institute.

Restoring dignity to farming in Canada is imperative.

The post Europe’s agricultural uprising a warning for Canada appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Likewise, generation Z (born in 1997-2012) has surpassed generation X (born in 1966-1980) to become Canada’s third-largest generation and is projected to become the largest within the next 30 years.

The implications of a growing and younger population for the food industry are multifaceted.

Millennials are distinct from past generations in their racial diversity, higher education and technological literacy. They also face financial hardships later in life, unlike previous generations that typically encountered a challenging job market or an unforgiving economy at a younger age.

Now at their economic prime and at the age to start families, millennials are feeling the financial pinch from higher interest rates and rents. After a period of low unemployment and cheap money, this generation is facing a severe financial reality check.

This is evident in their grocery shopping habits. Over 86 per cent of millennials are actively seeking discounts and over 66 per cent have switched primary grocery stores in the last 12 months to find better deals — both percentages being the highest of all generations.

Additionally, 43 per cent are using food-rescuing apps to buy expiring food at a discount, again the highest usage percentage of all generations. The economic and financial transition millennials had to navigate has been drastic.

Previously, millennials frequented specialty stores, seeking fresher, natural, environmentally conscious food with clean labels. However, their new financial reality has forced a shift in priorities.

Those values will not disappear, though, and as millennials recover fiscally, they will shape the food industry.

Millennials’ preferences for ethnically diverse food and snacking will continue to influence grocers and food service operators. Our recent survey found that 28.3 per cent of millennials often replace meals with snacks, compared to just 8.7 per cent of baby boomers.

Millennials rely on friends and family as their primary source of information about food, unlike boomers, who turn to health professionals. They also pay close attention to food labels.

Supported by social media, millennials have challenged the food industry, advocating for clean labelling, better sourcing of ingredients and healthier options.

As the food industry adapts to these evolving preferences, it will also need to anticipate emerging trends brought by generation Z. Gen Z’s values, shaped by their digital-native upbringing and heightened social and environmental awareness, will further push the industry toward transparency, sustainability and innovation.

For instance, gen Z’s preference for alternative protein sources is likely to accelerate the shift toward more sustainable food production. Their comfort with technology will also drive the adoption of online grocery shopping and food delivery services, which saw a surge during the pandemic.

Moreover, gen Z’s emphasis on authenticity and experience may lead to a rise in experiential dining and unique food offerings. They are also more likely to support local and small-scale producers, aligning with their values of sustainability and community.

Understanding and adapting to these generational shifts will be crucial for businesses in the food sector to stay relevant and thrive in the years to come.

The post Opinion: The times, they are a-changin’ appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

It seeks to bestow immunity upon supply management from concessions in any potential future trade negotiations. In essence, it risks holding all other economic sectors hostage solely to safeguard the interests of a small, privileged group of farmers.

This is far from an optimal scenario, and the implications are bad news for Canadians.

Supply management, which governs poultry, egg and dairy production in Canada, has traditionally enabled us to fulfil our domestic needs. The model has been in place for more than five decades, ostensibly to shield family farms from economic volatility.

Despite the implementation of supply management, Canada has witnessed a comparable decline in the number of farms as the United States, where a national supply management scheme does not exist. Supply management has failed to preserve much of anything beyond enriching select agricultural sectors.

Dairy farmers now possess quotas valued at over $25 billion while dairy processors are burdened with the highest-priced industrial milk in the Western world.

The emergence of Bill C-282 is no surprise. Proponents of supply management exert considerable influence over politicians across party lines.

While Canada’s agricultural sector accounts for approximately seven per cent of our GDP, supply-managed industries represent a small fraction of that figure. Supply-managed farms represent about five per cent of all farms in Canada.

Forging trade agreements with key partners such as India, China and the United Kingdom is imperative not only for sectors like automotive, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, but for the vast majority of farms in livestock and grains to thrive and contribute to global welfare and prosperity.

It is essential to recognize that Canada has much more to offer than merely self-sufficiency in food production.

Over time, the marketing boards overseeing quotas for farmers have amassed significant power and have proven themselves politically aggressive. They vehemently oppose any challenges to the existing system. Despite occasional resistance, no major political party has dared question the disproportionate protection afforded to one sector over others.

Strengthening our supply-managed sectors necessitates embracing competition, which can only serve to enhance their resilience and competitiveness.

A recent example of the consequences of protectionism is the United Kingdom’s decision to walk away from trade negotiations with Canada due to disagreements over access to our dairy market. Not only do many Canadians appreciate the quality of British cheese, but increased competition in the dairy section would drive prices down, a welcome relief given current economic challenges.

In the past decade, Canada has ratified trade agreements such as CUSMA, CETA and CPTPP, all of which entailed breaches in our supply management regime. Claims of losses resulting from market access concessions are often unfounded. Farmer boards simply adjust quotas when producers exit the industry.

Bill C-282 represents a misguided initiative driven by farmer boards that capitalize on the ignorance of urban residents and politicians regarding rural realities.

Embracing further protectionism will harm consumers who yearn for more competition at the grocery store. It will also impede the growth opportunities of various agricultural sectors striving to compete globally and stifle the expansion prospects of non-agricultural sectors that seek greater market access.

The post Opinion: Why Bill C-282 is an awful idea appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

However, when it comes to supply-managed sectors such as dairy, eggs and poultry, the dynamics are a bit different, particularly regarding the prices they can charge to processors. The challenge of transparency persists in these sectors.

Supply management involves government-sanctioned quotas granted to farmers to produce the specific amount of food required, and no more. This system helps protect the Canadian market from exorbitant prices on imports, resulting in greater stability in supplies and prices compared to other commodities. It’s important to understand that when production costs rise, the prices farmers receive must also increase. This is a straightforward principle.

It is nearly impossible for Canadian dairy, egg or poultry farmers to incur losses. However, there’s been an unusual development in British Columbia, where the board representing chicken farmers has sought to increase chicken prices without disclosing their reasons. They have requested the provincial government’s approval for a new pricing scheme that could potentially drive retail prices even higher. Farmers have remained tight-lipped about their motives and explanations.

Organizations like Restaurants Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers are urging the British Columbia government to intervene and address the proposed changes in the farm-level chicken pricing system. They believe that such changes could lead to a 10 per cent or higher increase in consumer prices.

Poultry prices in B.C. have soared in recent years, especially since the onset of the pandemic. According to Statistics Canada, since 2020 chicken prices have risen by around 15-20 per cent, a relatively modest increase compared to other food categories. But in British Columbia, prices of chicken breasts and thighs are 15.1 per cent and 17.5 per cent higher than the national average, respectively. Chicken drumsticks are an astonishing 40.5 per cent above the national average and whole chickens are priced over 50 per cent higher.

The role of chicken in the Canadian diet is substantial. The per capita consumption of chicken in Canada is approximately 36 kilograms, making it the most popular source of animal protein in the country, surpassing beef and pork by a considerable margin. Many well-known restaurant chains like KFC, Nando’s, McDonald’s, and Popeye’s heavily rely on affordable chicken to maintain stable menu prices. Unfortunately, these chains and consumers have limited influence in the current supply management system, which is a fundamental issue.

Some argue for the abolition of supply management for various reasons. While it is true that chicken prices in Canada are typically higher than in the United States, the system’s vertical co-ordination has proven advantageous, especially during the recent avian flu outbreaks. Nevertheless, the lack of transparency remains a significant concern.

Furthermore, the changes proposed in British Columbia could have ripple effects across the entire country, as similar boards exist in every province and could adopt similar pricing system modifications.

Farmers undoubtedly deserve to earn a fair livelihood. However, within a government-sanctioned quota system, chicken farmers should uphold their moral contract with the public by providing complete information and data to justify any necessary price increases.

– Sylvain Charlebois is professor of food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University, and senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab.

The post Comment: The case of the chicken price hike appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Many people wonder if meat is genuinely more expensive than plant-based proteins. The answer is not as straightforward as it may seem.

Several studies conducted in recent years suggest that plant-based proteins are generally less expensive than meat, at least over the past 12 months. However, when examining prices in Canada, the situation is not as clear.

Let’s start with meat. Since March 2020, meat prices especially for popular components like chicken, pork and beef, have experienced significant fluctuations. Even from one month to the next, variations can be quite pronounced.

According to Statistics Canada, ground beef prices increased by a net 16 per cent in November 2023 compared to March 2020. It’s evident that certain beef cuts are more expensive than ground meat, but the latter remains popular among consumers.

As for pork and chicken, the increases have been more moderate, ranging from four per cent to seven per cent since March 2020. These percentages remain below the overall average for food expenditures during the same period.

Regarding plant-based proteins, let’s examine four relatively popular products: lentils, dry beans, tofu and hummus. Since March 2020, their prices have increased by 25 per cent, 23 per cent, 16 per cent, and 10 per cent, respectively.

While these increases are more substantial, they have been more gradual, without the violent fluctuations seen with meat. Since these prices are less volatile, the hikes often go unnoticed. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but the data doesn’t lie.

Meat counter prices tend to fluctuate more due to the greater influence of variables such as energy and transportation costs. Plant-based proteins are less exposed to biosecurity and high food safety risks, resulting in fewer losses, and their production is generally less intensive. However, once prices have risen, consumer perception is durably affected, leading them to believe the product is still too expensive. This is what’s known as meat counter psychology, which influences our perceptions.

People feel like meat counter prices have increased more in recent years, but that’s not entirely the case, at least according to Statistics Canada data. In terms of volume, of course, animal protein is generally more expensive, but it’s also not the same protein.

There are exceptions, and some meat cuts have genuinely risen in price in recent years. Similarly, the prices of certain plant-based products, not just ingredients, have also increased since March 2020.

The affordability of proteins is just one element to consider. The choice to reduce meat consumption goes beyond price. Environmental concerns, animal welfare and health are significant decision factors for consumers.

However, if your resolution for 2024 is to eat less meat, saving money is unlikely to be your primary motivation. You can still save by buying meat at the right time. It’s just that purchasing meat requires a more elaborate strategy, whereas plant-based protein prices seem more predictable.

That’s all there is to it.

The post Opinion: Meat too expensive? Not so fast appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.