Supermarkets and Grocery Stores

Latest story

138 Shares199 Views

Reduflación: qué pasa cuando los comestibles pesan menos y cuestan igual

by

Los compradores de comestibles están notando algo raro. Bolsas de papas fritas llenas de aire. Latas de sopa que se han encogido. Paquetes de detergente más pequeños.Las empresas están reduciendo el tamaño de sus productos sin reducir los precios, y los comentarios de los consumidores, desde Reddit a TikTok, pasando por la sección de comentarios de The New York Times, rebosan indignación por esta tendencia, conocida como reduflación (shrinkflation en inglés).La práctica no es nueva. Los vendedores llevan siglos reduciendo discretamente los productos para evitar subir los precios, y los expertos creen que ha sido una obvia estrategia corporativa al menos desde 1988, cuando la marca Chock Full o’Nuts redujo su bote de café de 455 gramos a 368 gramos y sus competidores siguieron el ejemplo.Pero la indignación hoy es más pronunciada. El presidente Joe Biden se hizo eco del enojo en un video reciente. (“Lo que más rabia me da es que los envases de helado han disminuido de tamaño, pero no de precio”, lamentó). Las propias empresas explotan esta práctica con trucos publicitarios. Una cadena canadiense presentó una pizza growflation . (“En términos de pizza”, bromeaba el comunicado de prensa de la empresa, “una tajada más grande”).Pero, ¿cómo funciona la reduflación desde el punto de vista económico? ¿Sucede con más frecuencia en Estados Unidos y, si es así, significa que los datos oficiales no reflejan el verdadero alcance de la inflación? A continuación te explicamos la tendencia y lo que significa para tu bolsillo.La reduflación fue galopante en 2016Puede resultar difícil de creer, pero la reduflación parece estar ocurriendo con menos frecuencia hoy que hace unos años.Los mayores efectos de la reduflaciónCuando los productos encogen, aumentan la inflación. Estos bienes experimentaron el mayor aumento de precios por la reduflación.

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

Variación de precios de enero de 2019 a octubre de 2023
Fuente: Oficina de Estadísticas Laborales de EE. UU.Por The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Shrinkflation 101: The Economics of Smaller Groceries

    by

    Grocery store shoppers are noticing something amiss. Air-filled bags of chips. Shrunken soup cans. Diminished detergent packages.Companies are downsizing products without downsizing prices, and consumer posts from Reddit to TikTok to the New York Times comments section drip with indignation at the trend, widely known as “shrinkflation.”The practice isn’t new. Sellers have been quietly shrinking products to avoid raising prices for centuries, and experts think it has been an obvious corporate strategy since at least 1988, when Chock Full o’Nuts cut its one-pound coffee canister to 13 ounces and its competitors followed suit.But outrage today is acute. President Biden tapped into the angst in a recent video. (“What makes me the most angry is that ice cream cartons have actually shrunk in size, but not in price,” he lamented.) Companies themselves are blasting the practice in marketing gimmicks. One Canadian chain unveiled a growflation pizza. (“In pizza terms,” the company’s news release quipped, “a larger slice of the pie.”)But how does shrinkflation work, economically? Is it happening more often in the United States, and if so, does that mean official data are failing to capture the true extent of inflation? Below is an explainer of the trend — and what it means for your wallet.Shrinkflation was rampant in 2016.It might be hard to believe, but shrinkflation appears to be happening less often today than it was a few years ago.The Biggest Shrinkflation EffectsWhen products shrink, it adds to inflation. These goods saw the biggest bump to their price increases from “shrinkflation.”

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Change in price from January 2019 to October 2023
    Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    An Emboldened F.T.C. Bolsters Biden’s Efforts to Address Inflation

    by

    With few unilateral options and little hope of legislation from Congress, the president’s early investment in competition policy could pay a political dividend.An independent federal agency has become one of the most reliable executors of President Biden’s attempts to fight inflation, at a time when the White House has few weapons of its own to quickly bring down stubbornly high prices of consumer staples like groceries.The Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit on Monday, joined by several state attorneys general, to challenge a merger between the supermarket giants Kroger and Albertsons. The agency’s rationale in many ways echoed Mr. Biden’s renewed attempts to blame corporate greed for rising prices and shrinking portions in grocery aisles.“If allowed, this merger would substantially lessen competition, likely resulting in Americans paying millions of dollars more for food and other essential household goods,” agency officials wrote in a legal complaint. Because grocery prices have risen significantly in recent years, they added, “the stakes for Americans are exceptionally high.”That is true for consumers, and it is true for the president. More Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy than approve of it. Consumer confidence, while improved in recent months, remains relatively weak for an economy with low unemployment and solid growth like the one Mr. Biden is presiding over.An internal analysis by White House economists suggests that no single factor is weighing more on consumer sentiment than grocery prices. Those costs soared in 2022 and have not fallen, though their rate of increase has slowed.White House officials concede that there is little more Mr. Biden can do unilaterally to reduce grocery prices and even less chance of legislative help from Congress. That is why Mr. Biden has resorted to the bully pulpit, calling on stores to reduce prices and chastising snack makers for engaging in “shrinkflation” — reducing portions while raising or maintaining prices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Will Food Prices Stop Rising Quickly? Many Companies Say Yes.

    by

    Food companies are talking about smaller price increases this year, good news for grocery shoppers, restaurant diners and the White House.Few prices are as visible to Americans as the ones they encounter at the grocery store or drive-through window, which is why two years of rapid food inflation have been a major drag for U.S. households and the Biden administration.Shoppers have only slowly regained confidence in the state of the economy as they pay more to fill up their carts, and President Biden has made a habit of shaming food companies — even filming a Super Bowl Sunday video criticizing snack producers for their “rip off” prices.But now, the trend in grocery and restaurant inflation appears to be on the cusp of changing.After months of rapid increase, the cost of food at home climbed at a notably slower clip in January. And from packaged food providers to restaurant chains, companies across the food business are reporting that they are no longer raising prices as steeply. In some cases that’s because consumers are finally pushing back against price increases after years of spending through them. In others, it’s because the prices that companies pay for inputs like packaging and labor are no longer rising as sharply.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Year-over-year change in consumer price indexes
    Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesEven if food inflation cools, it does not mean that your grocery bill or restaurant check will get smaller: It just means it will stop climbing so quickly. Most companies are planning smaller price increases rather than outright price cuts. Still, when it comes to the question of whether rapid jumps in grocery and restaurant prices are behind us, what executives are telling investors offer some reason for hope.Some, but not all, consumers are saying no.Executives have found in recent months that they can raise prices only so high before consumers cut back.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Takes Aim at Grocery Chains Over Food Prices

    by

    President Biden has begun to accuse stores of overcharging shoppers, as food costs remain a burden for consumers and a political problem for the president.President Biden, whose approval rating has suffered amid high inflation, is beginning to pressure large grocery chains to slash food prices for American consumers, accusing the stores of reaping excess profits and ripping off shoppers.“There are still too many corporations in America ripping people off: price gouging, junk fees, greedflation, shrinkflation,” Mr. Biden said last week in South Carolina. Aides say those comments are a preview of more pressure to come against grocery chains and other companies that are maintaining higher-than-usual profit margins after a period of rapid price growth.Mr. Biden’s public offensive reflects the political reality that, while inflation is moderating, voters are angry about how much they are paying at the grocery store and that is weighing on Mr. Biden’s approval rating ahead of the 2024 election.Economic research suggests the cost of eggs, milk and other staples — which consumers buy far more frequently than big-ticket items like furniture or electronics — play an outsized role in shaping Americans’ views of inflation. Those prices jumped by more than 11 percent in 2022 and by 5 percent last year, amid a post-pandemic inflation surge that was the nation’s fastest burst of price increases in four decades.The rate of increase is slowing rapidly: In December, prices for food consumed at home were up by just over 1 percent, according to the Labor Department. But administration officials say Mr. Biden is keenly aware that prices remain too elevated for many families, even as key items, like gasoline and household furnishings, are now cheaper than they were at their post-pandemic peak.And yet, there is a general belief across administration officials and their allies that there is little else Mr. Biden could do unilaterally to force grocery prices down quickly.Grocery store margins are rising

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Operating profit margin by type of retailer
    Notes: Operating margin defined as sales, receipts and operating revenue as a share of operating expenses. Data shown as four-quarter rolling average.Source: Council of Economic AdvisersBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Prices for Some Goods Are Actually Falling This Holiday Season

    by

    As inflation slows, prices for some physical goods are falling outright, which could lift consumers’ spirits.American shoppers, burned by more than two years of rapid inflation, are getting some welcome relief this holiday season: Prices on many products are falling.Toys are almost 3 percent cheaper this Christmas than last, government data shows. Sports equipment is down nearly 2 percent. Bigger-ticket items are also showing price declines: Washing machines cost 12 percent less than a year ago, for example. And eggs, whose meteoric rise in prices last winter became a prime example of the country’s inflation problem, are down 22 percent over the past year.Consumer prices, in the aggregate, are still rising, though not nearly as quickly as a year ago. Most groceries still cost more than they did a year ago. So do most services, such as restaurant meals, haircuts and trips to the dentist. And housing costs, the biggest monthly expense for most Americans, are still rising for both renters and home buyers. Overall, the price of physical goods is flat over the past year, while the price of services is up a bit more than 5 percent.Still, economists view the moderation in goods prices as an important step toward putting the high inflation of the past two and a half years more firmly in the rearview mirror. They expect it to continue: Most forecasters say prices for physical products will keep falling next year, especially prices for longer-lasting manufactured goods, where the recent declines have been largest. That should help price increases overall to ease.“We’re just kind of in the beginning of that phase, and we should continue to see downward pressure on prices in this category,” said Michelle Meyer, chief economist for Mastercard.For consumers, who have been dour about the economy despite low unemployment, falling prices on many goods could provide a psychological lift. After the rapid inflation of the past few years, a mere slowdown in price increases might not feel like much to celebrate. But seeing prices fall could be a different story — especially because some of the biggest recent declines have been in categories that consumers tend to pay the most attention to, such as gasoline. (The price of regular gas, which topped $5 a gallon nationally in June 2022, has fallen to just over $3 on average, according to AAA.)Most groceries still cost more than they did a year ago. Maansi Srivastava/The New York Times“People will key in on certain prices,” said Neale Mahoney, a Stanford University economist who recently left a role in the Biden administration. “We know that people will overweight certain things.”The price of many goods soared in 2021, fed by a surge in demand from consumers flush with pandemic relief checks and by supply chain disruptions that limited supplies of many products, especially those from overseas.Many economists initially expected a quick reversal, but instead prices kept rising. Supply chains took longer to return to normal than expected, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to a spike in energy prices in 2022. At the same time, consumer demand for goods remained high, and many companies took advantage of the opportunity to push through price increases and pad their profit margins.Now, however, many of those forces are beginning to fade. Supply chains have largely returned to normal. Oil prices have fallen. Economic weakness in China and other countries has held down demand for many raw materials, which feeds through to consumer prices.Softer demand from American consumers could also be playing a role. The Federal Reserve has raised interest rates repeatedly since early last year in an effort to curb spending and control inflation. Consumers have so far proved remarkably resilient, but retailers in recent months have reported that shoppers have increasingly traded down to cheaper items or waited for sales before buying — trends that could accelerate if the economy cools further next year.“We think that the consumer is going to be looking for value, and that’s because they are very sensitive to price,” Carlos E. Alberini, chief executive of Guess, the fashion retailer, told investors last month. The company has “revisited some of the pricing structure we have in all brands,” he added.The price of services is up a bit more than 5 percent for such things as restaurant meals, haircuts and trips to the dentist.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesSome toy manufacturers and retailers that sell toys have also said they expect sales this season to be less robust than in years past and have leaned into advertising their products’ affordability.At many companies, price cuts have taken the form of Black Friday sales and holiday promotions that are larger for some categories of items than in past years. At Signet Jewelers, the big diamond retailer, sales fell in the third quarter, and the company recently said that it expected sales to be lower this holiday season than last year in part because of “elevated promotional activity.”“It’s been a different holiday season,” Virginia C. Drosos, Signet’s chief executive, told investors on a conference call this month. Instead of shopping early, customers are waiting to make their purchases and are looking for deals, she said.Matt Pavich, senior director of innovation and strategy for Revionics, a company that uses artificial intelligence to help retailers set prices, said companies were trying to cut prices before their competitors do.“As prices come down, there’s going to be the race to bring prices down more, get the credit for that,” he said. “We’re going to see retailers really trying to win back consumers’ trust.”Still, prices for most products remain well above where they were before the pandemic. A dozen eggs cost about 50 cents more than in February 2020. Used car prices, another prominent example of pandemic sticker shock, have fallen more than 10 percent from their peak early last year but are 37 percent above where they were in February 2020.Services prices are still climbing more quickly than before the pandemic. Some economists say that goods prices will need to fall further for overall inflation to return to the Federal Reserve’s target of 2 percent a year.“We need pretty substantial deflation, and I wouldn’t call what we’re seeing ‘substantial,’” said Wendy Edelberg, director of the Hamilton Project, an economic policy division of the Brookings Institution. “It’s not even substantial in a historical context.”Indeed, prices of durable goods fell much of the two decades that preceded the pandemic. Long-term trends such as globalization and automation have tended to push down manufacturing costs. Intense competition among retailers, especially with the rise of online shopping, meant those savings were mostly passed on to consumers.Services prices, on the other hand, rarely fall, in part because wages account for a much larger share of the cost of most services. During the decade before the pandemic, services prices gradually rose while goods prices were flat or fell, resulting in an extended period of stable, moderate inflation.Economists don’t expect to see outright deflation, in which prices fall for both goods and services. That’s a good thing: Overall price declines are generally viewed as economically dangerous, if they last.“When demand in the economy is weak, the last thing you want is someone to say, ‘I’m not going to buy that car today because it’s going to be $600 less expensive in six months,’” said Karen Dynan, an economist at Harvard.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesThere are a few reasons. For starters, in theory, deflation could prompt consumers to hold off on spending, touching off a downward spiral. People may be unlikely to buy today what they expect to be cheaper tomorrow. Once deflation takes hold, it can be difficult to escape: Japan has been stuck in a deflationary pattern since the late 1990s.“When demand in the economy is weak, the last thing you want is someone to say, ‘I’m not going to buy that car today because it’s going to be $600 less expensive in six months,’” said Karen Dynan, an economist at Harvard.For another, companies are unlikely to raise wages in a world where they cannot charge more. And if wages are not going up — or are even going down — it will be harder for households to keep up with fixed bills, like mortgage interest payments.But while broad-based price declines are a problem, most economists view the more limited declines happening now as a sign that the economy is gradually moving past the disruptions of the pandemic.“Supply chains have basically normalized,” said Neil Dutta, head of economic research at Renaissance Macro. “Household demand behavior has basically normalized, the dollar is still pretty strong. I wouldn’t see a reason why goods prices would go higher.” More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Those Doritos Too Expensive? More Stores Offer Their Own Alternatives.

    by

    Retailers are expanding their own private-label food and beverage offerings, attracting customers looking for less expensive options.The snack chips had become pretty pricey.For years, customers stopping at Casey’s General Stores, a convenience store chain in the Midwest, hadn’t thought twice about snagging a soda and a bag of Lay’s or Doritos chips. But over the past year, as the price of a bag of chips soared and some customers felt squeezed by the high cost of gas and other expenses, they began picking up Casey’s less-expensive store brand.So Casey’s began stocking more of its own chips, in a variety of new flavors. This summer, Casey’s brand made up a quarter of all bags of chips sold, eating into the sales of big brands like Frito-Lay, which is owned by PepsiCo.“As inflation continues to ratchet up, more people are open to trying alternatives,” said Darren Rebelez, the chief executive of Casey’s, which has 350 private-label products and plans to add 45 this year. “If you put the alternative right on the shelf, right next to the expensive option, people may say, ‘What the heck,’ and give it a try.”Large food companies gobbled up market share during the pandemic. With supply chain issues affecting what was on the shelves, people were buying basically whatever they could find. And they kept buying even as prices soared when the food and beverage brands raised prices to maintain their profit levels while still covering rising ingredient and labor costs.But with retailers now expanding their store-owned food and beverage offerings, consumers are slowly shifting their spending. Overall, private-label foods and beverages have crept up to a 20.6 percent share of grocery dollars from 18.7 percent before the pandemic, according to the market research firm Circana.In some categories like canned vegetables and cheese, private-label goods have garnered a significant portion of the market.Andres Kudacki for The New York TimesBut a deeper look at some categories reveals private-label goods are gaining significant ground on national brands. Private labels snagged 38 percent of canned vegetable sales in the three months that ended June 30, according to Numerator, another market research firm. Numerator’s data also shows private-label cheese held 45 percent of the market and coffee nearly 15 percent.The shift in spending reflects a customer base that is nearing or at its tipping point. Inflation, which climbed to 3.7 percent in September, is running at a less-rapid pace than a year ago, but millions of shoppers still face increasingly high prices in grocery stores.The trend is having a greater effect among those with lower incomes, who spend a greater share of their paycheck on food, even as a pandemic-era policy that increased the amount of money that food-stamp recipients received over the last three years has ended. This month, payments on federal student loans, which had been on pause for the pandemic, also resumed. Adding to the financial burden, rates on credit cards and mortgages are rising.Two-thirds of consumers said in July that they bought less-expensive groceries at retailers, an increase of four percentage points from a year earlier, according to the consulting firm McKinsey. The shift, the firm said, was particularly pronounced among those with incomes less than $100,000 in categories such as meat, dairy and staples.“Consumers are trading down,” said Rupesh D. Parikh, an equity analyst at Oppenheimer & Company who covers food, grocery and consumer products. He recently bought a box of Kellogg’s Mini Wheats cereal at Walmart along with the Walmart version. “The Kellogg’s cereal was 75 percent more expensive, and I couldn’t tell the difference between them,” he said.Big brands, in response, are already starting to offer small sale prices on certain foods, like salty snacks. “The question is how deep they are willing to go in promotions,” Mr. Parikh said.The expansion in private-label goods is also a response to a changing grocery landscape. Competition is revving up because of consolidation, led by Kroger’s proposed $24.6 billion merger with Albertsons, and the push into the United States by entrants like the German discount chain Aldi, which stocks 90 percent of its shelves with private-label goods. In August, Aldi agreed to acquire 400 Winn Dixie and Harveys Supermarket stores, giving it a significant presence in the Southeast.Retailers say they need the private-label goods to give consumers a broader array of choices. The store brands are also typically more profitable for the retailers than products from big food companies.But perhaps the biggest factor is a seismic shift in consumer attitudes. Older generations that grew up with “generic” ketchup or soup recall them as bland, tasteless versions of the name brands. Retailers, which have dumped the term “generic,” insist that the quality of the private-label foods and beverages has improved substantially. Social media platforms like TikTok and Reddit are filled with young people hyping their favorite store brand foods at Aldi and Trader Joe’s.“If the food is not good quality, our reputation is at risk,” said Scott Patton, the vice president of national buying for Aldi, who said the chain was seeing increased traffic in all income levels. “If you’re going to sell a store-branded apple cinnamon ice cream, it had better be the best apple cinnamon ice cream you’ve ever had.”Retailers are offering customers “belly fillers,” basic foods at low prices that are virtual clones of national brands, but they are also hunting for ways to differentiate themselves, said Jordan Bouey, the owner of Silver State Baking, a Las Vegas-based manufacturer that makes cookies, bars and breads for grocery chains and retailers.“If there’s a category that doesn’t have a big national brand, retailers are looking to be unique and give the shoppers what they’re looking for, like a protein cookie,” Mr. Bouey said.The private-label pasta carried by Wegmans includes more high-end varieties aimed at “the food enthusiast,” an executive said.Andres Kudacki for The New York TimesAt a Wegmans in Hanover, N.J., the dried pasta aisle was stocked with fettuccine, shells and spaghetti from well-known brands like Barilla and De Cecco. But the vast majority of the pasta on the shelves was Wegmans’ own brand, one line priced at 99 cents a box and another, Amore, that is imported from Italy and $4.99 a box, about $2 more than some of the national brands.“We want our brand to serve the value customer who is on a budget,” said Nicole Wegman, who was named president of Wegmans Brand in 2021. Wegmans has expanded its private-label business in recent years to more than 17,000 products, including deli and prepared meals, frozen vegetables and healthy snacks.“But we also want products, like our cheese and our breads, that are fun for the food enthusiast,” Ms. Wegman said. “They’re specialty items and more expensive to make, so we have to charge more for them.”Indeed, executives at Casey’s, which started dabbling in private-label goods three years ago, said they were trying not to compete with the national brands but rather expand what’s available for customers. In some cases, that means offering flavors the national brands do not.Sales of limited-edition Casey’s chips in flavors like sweet corn, barbecue brisket and jalapeño Cheddar sold well this summer. “Those are the kind of products that a Frito-Lay is not going to make because it is not a national flavor profile that is going to work for their business,” Mr. Rebelez said.But he also acknowledged that some Casey’s customers were simply looking for deals.Take candy bars. For years, retailers would not compete against behemoths like Hershey and Mars because customers remained loyal to the brands they had grown up eating. But as the price of candy bars rose in recent years, some customers stopped buying.So Casey’s created four of its own lower-priced candy bars, including a chocolate with mint and a chocolate caramel.“I was skeptical going in, but those candy bars have performed really well,” Mr. Rebelez said, adding that Casey’s was working on more iterations. “There is a breaking point for consumers, and in certain products and categories we’ll provide an alternative.” More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Pork Industry Grapples With Whiplash of Shifting Regulations

    by

    Retailers in California, and pig farmers and processors thousands of miles away, are bracing for the impact of a state ban on some sources of the meat.These were supposed to be boom times for Pederson’s Natural Farms.In the days this spring after the Supreme Court upheld a California law banning the sale of certain pork products made from pigs raised in small gestation pens, the phones were ringing off the hook at Pederson’s headquarters in Hamilton, Texas.California grocery stores and restaurants were desperate to line up supplies of bacon and pork chops that met the new state standards by a July 1 deadline. Pederson’s products filled the bill, and the company was happy to help send them to California, which consumes about 15 percent of the nation’s pork.“We were going to have a good year,” said Neil Dudley, the vice president at Pederson’s. “We were putting it in the budget. We were going to put pressure on us to grow, but the extra income would help fund that growth.”But a couple of weeks later, some of those new orders were canceled as California regulators pushed back the full force of the law, known as Proposition 12, to early next year, allowing grocery stores and restaurants to use up pork they had already boughtBrined pork bellies ready for removal from a vacuum tumbler and then hanging in a smoker at Pederson’s.Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times“We were going to have a good year,” said Neil Dudley, a Pederson’s executive. Then California pushed back its timeline, and some orders were canceled.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesThe normally orderly pork industry has been thrown into upheaval as pig farmers in the Midwest, major pork processors and California businesses have reacted to the changing legal and regulatory landscape in recent months. Further confusion could come if Congress passes pending legislation that would effectively nullify the California act.“There is so much murky water here,” said Todd Davis, the meat and seafood coordinator for Oliver’s Markets, which operates four grocery stores in Sonoma County, Calif., and has lined up pork products that meet the new state requirements.“You are supposed to be compliant as of July 1, but I don’t think the state has any teeth on the enforcement side of things,” Mr. Davis continued. “Companies aren’t taking it as seriously as they should, and at some point the state will make an example out of one of them,” which he said could include costly fines.Already, farmers are facing hog prices that have been depressed since fall while feed costs have remained high, leading to average losses of $30 to $50 a hog for much of this year in Iowa, according to estimated livestock returns from Iowa State University. A pound of bacon costs an average of $6.20 at grocery stores across the country, down from $7.60 last fall, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank at St. Louis.Nationally, pork prices are influenced by everything from feed cost to demand from China to the shifting mood in commodities markets, but some retailers are already raising prices in California, to pass on the higher cost to hog farmers of meeting the state’s more stringent standards. With other farmers opting not sell in the state, short supply could also push the prices of bacon and pork chops higher.Piglets are kept with their sows at A-Frame Acres in Elliott, Iowa, which is part of the Niman Ranch network.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesFeeding time at A-Frame Acres, which is run by Ron Mardesen, above.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesPig farmers say making changes for California is costly. Along with his partners, Dwight Mogler, a fourth-generation farmer in Iowa who sells about 200,000 hogs each year, spent $8.7 million in 2022 building a new facility and modifying an existing one to meet the new standards. A packing company pays him a small premium over market price for his pigs — he declined to provide details of the deal — but Mr. Mogler estimates that it will take 10 years to recoup his outlay.Other farmers say they’re simply not going to modify how they raise pigs.“We’re losing money in the pig industry,” said Trish Cook, the president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association, who, along with her family, raises pigs near Winthrop in eastern Iowa. “The idea of having a large capital expenditure with no clear payback on it doesn’t make business sense to us. We don’t know what sort of premium those pigs will get.”For California, questions about whether consumers will have enough bacon and pork chops and how much they will cost also remain unclear.Ronald Fong, the chief executive of the California Grocers Association, which pushed for an extension of the deadline, said stores were able to make it through Labor Day with the product that they had already bought. However, Mr. Fong said that soon “we’ll be faced with some shortages and price hikes.”Mr. Davis of Oliver’s Markets said he already bought pork from Niman Ranch, a producer that exceeds the California criteria, but had also always offered customers less-expensive pork options. Now, the cheaper pork that meets the new state criteria, from Open Prairie Natural Meats, a brand owned by Tyson, costs Oliver’s $1 to $1.50 a pound more, which Mr. Davis is passing along to customers, he said.“Chicken and pork are still very affordable options, especially when compared to beef prices,” Mr. Davis said. “So we’ve seen very little pushback from consumers.”Loading brined pork bellies into the smokehouse at Pederson’s.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesWhen voters passed Proposition 12 five years ago, it was a blow to the industrial meat producers, requiring that any veal calves, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens sold in California be housed in systems that allow freedom of movement. Under the rule, pigs must be born to sows housed in spaces that provide at least 24 square feet per sow. California produces very few of its own pigs, but the new rule also applies to pigs raised in other states.The law was supposed to go into effect in 2022, but the new pork standards were put on pause after the National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation filed a lawsuit challenging California’s ability to dictate pig operations in other states. They argued that if other states adopted different restrictions, the result would be a patchwork of rules and regulations. Massachusetts, for instance, passed its own gestation pen rule, called Question 3, in 2016, but it has been on hold, awaiting various court proceedings.In May, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that Proposition 12 was legal. It said the pork industry had not proved that the law imposed a substantial burden on interstate commerce. California officials began working through how to regulate and enforce the rule, but a state court delayed enforcement until the end of the year.And the pork industry isn’t done fighting. In June, senators from largely agricultural Midwestern states introduced the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act, which would limit the ability of states to regulate agriculture in other states.In early August, attorneys general from several states, including Texas, New Hampshire and Utah, signed a letter urging Congress to pass the EATS Act.“The industry lost in the court of public opinion in terms of California voters adopting this law, they lost in the courts, and now they’re trying to get something through with this legislative act,” said Chris Oliviero, the general manager of Niman Ranch, which pays its network of 600 farmers in 20 states premium prices to raise the beef, pork and lamb used in its products in conditions that exceed the California standards.“The ultimate goal is to prevent Prop. 12 from going into effect,” Mr. Oliviero added.Bacon slabs cooling after being smoked at Pederson’s.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesAs for Pederson’s, much of the pork it produces is already committed to a handful of longtime customers, including Whole Foods. The company did, however, have excess bacon that met the new standards.That is, until one of the farmers who supplied half of the pigs used by Pederson’s received a better offer from a larger company. Suddenly, Pederson’s pig supply was at risk.“Farmers, who are struggling to make money, are getting calls from the big guys, saying they want to contract with them,” Mr. Dudley said. “The big players can’t lose market share, not in a market as big as California. Instead of a boom year, we’re now looking at diminishing sales.” More

  • 100 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Facial Recognition Spreads as Tool to Fight Shoplifting

    by

    Simon Mackenzie, a security officer at the discount retailer QD Stores outside London, was short of breath. He had just chased after three shoplifters who had taken off with several packages of laundry soap. Before the police arrived, he sat at a back-room desk to do something important: Capture the culprits’ faces.On an aging desktop computer, he pulled up security camera footage, pausing to zoom in and save a photo of each thief. He then logged in to a facial recognition program, Facewatch, which his store uses to identify shoplifters. The next time those people enter any shop within a few miles that uses Facewatch, store staff will receive an alert.“It’s like having somebody with you saying, ‘That person you bagged last week just came back in,’” Mr. Mackenzie said.Use of facial recognition technology by the police has been heavily scrutinized in recent years, but its application by private businesses has received less attention. Now, as the technology improves and its cost falls, the systems are reaching further into people’s lives. No longer just the purview of government agencies, facial recognition is increasingly being deployed to identify shoplifters, problematic customers and legal adversaries.Facewatch, a British company, is used by retailers across the country frustrated by petty crime. For as little as 250 pounds a month, or roughly $320, Facewatch offers access to a customized watchlist that stores near one another share. When Facewatch spots a flagged face, an alert is sent to a smartphone at the shop, where employees decide whether to keep a close eye on the person or ask the person to leave.Mr. Mackenzie adds one or two new faces every week, he said, mainly people who steal diapers, groceries, pet supplies and other low-cost goods. He said their economic hardship made him sympathetic, but that the number of thefts had gotten so out of hand that facial recognition was needed. Usually at least once a day, Facewatch alerts him that somebody on the watchlist has entered the store.Mr. Mackenzie adds one or two new faces a week to the Facewatch watch list that stores in the area share.Suzie Howell for The New York TimesA sign at a supermarket that uses Facewatch in Bristol, England. Suzie Howell for The New York TimesFacial recognition technology is proliferating as Western countries grapple with advances brought on by artificial intelligence. The European Union is drafting rules that would ban many of facial recognition’s uses, while Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, has encouraged retailers to try the technology to fight crime. MSG Entertainment, the owner of Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall, has used automated facial recognition to refuse entry to lawyers whose firms have sued the company.Among democratic nations, Britain is at the forefront of using live facial recognition, with courts and regulators signing off on its use. The police in London and Cardiff are experimenting with the technology to identify wanted criminals as they walk down the street. In May, it was used to scan the crowds at the coronation of King Charles III.But the use by retailers has drawn criticism as a disproportionate solution for minor crimes. Individuals have little way of knowing they are on the watchlist or how to appeal. In a legal complaint last year, Big Brother Watch, a civil society group, called it “Orwellian in the extreme.”Fraser Sampson, Britain’s biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner, who advises the government on policy, said there was “a nervousness and a hesitancy” around facial recognition technology because of privacy concerns and poorly performing algorithms in the past.“But I think in terms of speed, scale, accuracy and cost, facial recognition technology can in some areas, you know, literally be a game changer,” he said. “That means its arrival and deployment is probably inevitable. It’s just a case of when.”‘You can’t expect the police to come’Simon Gordon, the owner of Gordon’s Wine Bar in London, founded Facewatch in 2010. As a business owner, “you’ve got to help yourself,” he said. Suzie Howell for The New York TimesFacewatch was founded in 2010 by Simon Gordon, the owner of a popular 19th-century wine bar in central London known for its cellarlike interior and popularity among pickpockets.At the time, Mr. Gordon hired software developers to create an online tool to share security camera footage with the authorities, hoping it would save the police time filing incident reports and result in more arrests.There was limited interest, but Mr. Gordon’s fascination with security technology was piqued. He followed facial recognition developments and had the idea for a watchlist that retailers could share and contribute to. It was like the photos of shoplifters that stores keep next to the register, but supercharged into a collective database to identify bad guys in real time.By 2018, Mr. Gordon felt the technology was ready for commercial use.“You’ve got to help yourself,” he said in an interview. “You can’t expect the police to come.”Facewatch, which licenses facial recognition software made by Real Networks and Amazon, is now inside nearly 400 stores across Britain. Trained on millions of pictures and videos, the systems read the biometric information of a face as the person walks into a shop and check it against a database of flagged people.Facewatch’s watchlist is constantly growing as stores upload photos of shoplifters and problematic customers. Once added, a person remains there for a year before being deleted.‘Mistakes are rare but do happen’Every time Facewatch’s system identifies a shoplifter, a notification goes to a person who passed a test to be a “super recognizer” — someone with a special talent for remembering faces. Within seconds, the super recognizer must confirm the match against the Facewatch database before an alert is sent.Facewatch is used in about 400 British stores.Suzie Howell for The New York TimesBut while the company has created policies to prevent misidentification and other errors, mistakes happen.In October, a woman buying milk in a supermarket in Bristol, England, was confronted by an employee and ordered to leave. She was told that Facewatch had flagged her as a barred shoplifter.The woman, who asked that her name be withheld because of privacy concerns and whose story was corroborated by materials provided by her lawyer and Facewatch, said there must have been a mistake. When she contacted Facewatch a few days later, the company apologized, saying it was a case of mistaken identity.After the woman threatened legal action, Facewatch dug into its records. It found that the woman had been added to the watchlist because of an incident 10 months earlier involving £20 of merchandise, about $25. The system “worked perfectly,” Facewatch said.But while the technology had correctly identified the woman, it did not leave much room for human discretion. Neither Facewatch nor the store where the incident occurred contacted her to let her know that she was on the watchlist and to ask what had happened.The woman said she did not recall the incident and had never shoplifted. She said she may have walked out after not realizing that her debit card payment failed to go through at a self-checkout kiosk.Madeleine Stone, the legal and policy officer for Big Brother Watch, said Facewatch was “normalizing airport-style security checks for everyday activities like buying a pint of milk.”Mr. Gordon declined to comment on the incident in Bristol.In general, he said, “mistakes are rare but do happen.” He added, “If this occurs, we acknowledge our mistake, apologize, delete any relevant data to prevent reoccurrence and offer proportionate compensation.”Approved by the privacy officeA woman said Facewatch had misidentified her at the Bristol market. Facewatch said the system had ”worked perfectly.”Suzie Howell for The New York TimesCivil liberties groups have raised concerns about Facewatch and suggested that its deployment to prevent petty crime might be illegal under British privacy law, which requires that biometric technologies have a “substantial public interest.”The U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office, the privacy regulator, conducted a yearlong investigation into Facewatch. The office concluded in March that Facewatch’s system was permissible under the law, but only after the company made changes to how it operated.Stephen Bonner, the office’s deputy commissioner for regulatory supervision, said in an interview that an investigation had led Facewatch to change its policies: It would put more signage in stores, share among stores only information about serious and violent offenders and send out alerts only about repeat offenders. That means people will not be put on the watchlist after a single minor offense, as happened to the woman in Bristol.“That reduces the amount of personal data that’s held, reduces the chances of individuals being unfairly added to this kind of list and makes it more likely to be accurate,” Mr. Bonner said. The technology, he said, is “not dissimilar to having just very good security guards.”Liam Ardern, the operations manager for Lawrence Hunt, which owns 23 Spar convenience stores that use Facewatch, estimates the technology has saved the company more than £50,000 since 2020.He called the privacy risks of facial recognition overblown. The only example of misidentification that he recalled was when a man was confused for his identical twin, who had shoplifted. Critics overlook that stores like his operate on thin profit margins, he said.“It’s easy for them to say, ‘No, it’s against human rights,’” Mr. Ardern said. If shoplifting isn’t reduced, he said, his shops will have to raise prices or cut staff. More