Rising beef prices have become a political talking point, but blaming “Big Beef” won’t make groceries cheaper. As Charles Sauer explains in a recent article originally published in RealClearMarkets, government crackdowns on meatpackers risk repeating the same antitrust mistakes that have already failed to lower prices elsewhere in the economy.
President Trump has renewed his focus on affordability, signing an executive order directing the Department of Justice to investigate meatpacking and distribution firms for alleged collusion and price manipulation. While the move may be politically popular, Sauer warns that it misunderstands what is actually driving higher beef prices — and could end up making food even more expensive.
“Breaking up meatpackers will not grow herds, end droughts, or lower feed costs,” Sauer writes.
The Real Cause of Rising Beef Prices
Retail beef prices have surged far faster than overall food inflation. Ground beef prices rose nearly 13% in a year, while steak prices jumped more than 16%. These increases have flowed through the economy, driving sharp price hikes at fast-food restaurants and pushing consumers toward alternatives like chicken.
Although four firms control roughly 80–85% of beef processing, Sauer notes that concentration alone cannot explain the price spike.
“These same companies also dominate pork and poultry markets — yet prices in those sectors are not rising nearly as fast as beef.”
The real culprit is supply. Beef supplies are now at their lowest level since 1951, driven by prolonged droughts in ranching regions and high grain prices that have forced ranchers to reduce herd sizes or leave the industry altogether.
Antitrust Won’t Fix a Supply Crisis
According to Sauer, government efforts to break up meatpackers would not address these underlying problems. Instead, they could introduce inefficiencies that further disrupt supply chains and raise prices for consumers.
Rather than pursuing investigations modeled on the Biden–Lina Khan antitrust agenda, Sauer argues policymakers should focus on reforms that expand supply and lower costs.
Real Solutions That Could Lower Prices
Sauer points to several concrete steps that would actually help consumers, farmers, and ranchers:
- Reducing tariffs on beef, farm equipment, and agricultural inputs
- Repealing regulations that prevent new competitors from entering the market
- Eliminating federal rules that make it harder for ranchers to obtain grazing permits
In response to a Trump executive order, the Federal Trade Commission has already identified more than 225 anti-competitive regulations that raise prices — including Department of Agriculture rules that increase costs for new ranchers.
The PRIME Act: A Better Approach
Sauer also highlights the PRIME Act (H.R. 4700), introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie and supported in the Senate by Rand Paul and Angus King. The bill would allow small, local slaughterhouses to sell meat within their states without complying with costly federal inspection regimes designed for industrial-scale operations.
“The PRIME Act would help ranchers, expand competition, and lower prices — while restoring federalism,” Sauer argues.
Conclusion
As Sauer makes clear in RealClearMarkets, affordable food won’t come from attacking supply chains or recycling failed antitrust theories. It will come from removing barriers, expanding competition, and letting markets work.
If Washington is serious about lowering beef prices, it should focus less on investigations — and more on reforms that actually increase supply.
Read the full article in RealClearMarkets by clicking here.
