433
Record chicken prices squeeze US shoppers, benefit Tyson Foods
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
433 points (98.2% liked)
News
36221 readers
391 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Less chickens being slaughtered is fine by me. Maybe beef and pork producers also wanna 'boost margins'
You're gonna be paying ten dollars for a spaghetti squash and looking at four dollar avocados once the farmers catch on and the demand equalizers lol. People need to eat.
Produce is waaay less conglomerated into massive corporations. Its just too easy to grow produce for anyone to control the market. To a point where if produce gets too expensive, I can just grow it myself.
Who tf is upvoting this? It's highly unlikely this person has the acreage, time, equipment, and knowledge to grow all their own food.
Even if they did, it's not a real solution to the vast majority of people.
Thats not how supply and demand works, any supply and any demand affects prices, and me growing food affects both, even if i dont cover my entire demand. I can and do grow a surprising amount of food. I cant however raise cattle, or pigs, and could only reasonably raise chickens for eggs, not for meat. Because anyone, me, other folks, and small scale farmers all can produce more supply with produce instead of meat given the resources. Its not a cornerable market
Monsanto owns a lot of the farms now.
If the farmers can sell it for ten, I can sell them fresher for 9. "People need to eat" no, corporations are robbing you blind.
What are you talking about? And how do I stop corporations from robbing me blind then--by simply not eating chicken? You act like the solution is to simply "change behavior x" which I am doing constantly. I am continuously reevaluation my expenses and trying to find alternative solutions. The reason I'm eating chicken is because it was the cheapest option for the longest time. Are you suggesting I grow and butcher my own chickens? And why are you refuting the fact that people need to eat when it is an irrefutable truth? If people stop eating protein rich meat, the cost of protein rich veggies and other supplements will skyrocket, and here we are having this conversation again.
I'm talking about exploiting corporate price gouging.
I don't pay for meat. My last grocery bill was for $113 for a week's worth of food. I know you chicken eaters can't beat that.
It doesn't matter that "people need to eat" is an irrefutable truth. It's bullshit. Meat is optional and you know it, so you use the "iRrEfUtAbLe tRuTh" as if it's a competent smokescreen for repeating the same conclusion as before.
90% of the things you do and own are optional, and the environmental impact from meat is miniscule in comparison to you even existing at all. Save your silly caps insults for somebody else, vegetarian-farmer-troll-man haha.
The advice is given. Keep paying for less food if that's what you think is the smartest thing to do.
How long do I have, doc?
The body may continue to thrive for a very long time, but the brain does appear to be a total loss.
lol. Of all the times I’ve asked that in response to brain dead comments like “people need meat” this is the funniest.
Never have gotten any actual reply showing any evidence of the original claim though. :(
"Need" is a matter of perspective. You don't "need" movies, video games, books, or friends, but let's see you give up any sort of random thing because some rando says there are no studies that proves you "need" it lmao. You could probably continue to survive on half the calories you consume each day, so why don't you? You're occupied double the food-based carbon footprint by choice.