Source: Sosland Publishing Co.

While concern about the food price increase opened the door to potentially constructive discussions about its causes as well as important policy issues, political discourse this year about the topic has been anything but thoughtful.

Knowing pocketbook issues resonate powerfully with consumers, the Trump campaign relentlessly has hammered the Biden administration for the high cost of food. During the Sept. 10 debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, for example, the former president blamed the current administration for “the highest inflation.”

“I’ve never seen a worse period of time,” he continued. “People can’t go out and buy cereal or bacon or eggs or anything else.”

Responding, Harris said, “It is important that we … address the needs of the American people, address bringing down the price of groceries.” In her campaign ads, she appeals to prospective voters by pledging to “lower your food and grocery bills by going after price gougers.”

Analysis published this month by the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute suggests neither candidate paints an accurate picture of what has transpired. “Food Price Inflation and the 2024 Presidential Election” was written by Joseph W. Glauber, a former chief economist at the US Department of Agriculture, and Vincent H. Smith, an emeritus professor of economics. Both are senior fellows at the AEI.

“Both candidates’ claims about the causes of higher food prices should be viewed with some skepticism, as their discussions largely ignore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected food supply chains and production costs,” Glauber and Smith explain.

Consumers have been pinched far less by the food price inflation than generally thought, they said. Even households with the lowest incomes increased the share of their income spent on food modestly — to 15.6% after taxes, from 14.3%. Both figures remain well below historical averages.

“These changes in the shares of total household spending on food are, on average, much smaller than many media commentators and politically vested advocates seem to suggest,” the economists said.

Dissecting the sources of food price inflation, Glauber and Smith said rising commodity prices played only a small part, generally. They noted that a wheat farmer pockets only 5% to 6% of what a consumer pays for a loaf of bread. The principal food inflation culprits, they explained, have been rising labor and energy costs.

In the case of egg prices, cited both by Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance, the AEI economists affirmed the price surge was precipitated by highly pathogenic avian influenza, which decimated flocks of laying hens. In resorting to finger pointing, Trump missed an opportunity to discuss how to deal with the increasing frequency of such episodes and finding ways to diminish the real risk of infectious disease catastrophically jumping from non-humans to humans. In wrongly suggesting price gouging is widespread, Harris similarly missed the opportunity to tie the higher food costs to labor shortages, and the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Such a discussion could include advocacy for programs supported by industry groups that would allow a larger percentage of undocumented immigrants to legally join the US workforce.

The candidates’ mishandling of the food inflation debate helps explain Pew Research data showing fewer than a quarter of Americans “trust the government in Washington to do what is right.” Another study by economists from the University of Illinois and Purdue University showed 43% of independent voters, poised to play a decisive role in determing the election outcome, believe no party can lower food prices. Price gouging legislation proposed by Harris and increased tariffs proposed by Trump are not the answers, and the food industry will need its voice heard to advocate for effective economic policies moving forward.