GoodFuels

Attack of the Killer Turkey Prices

The cost of this year’s Thanksgiving meal is up almost six percent this year, with turkey prices leading the way, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

turkeyThe cost of a 16-pound turkey, at $19.09 or roughly $1.19 per pound, reflects an increase of 9 cents per pound, or a total of $1.46 per turkey compared to 2007. This is the largest contributor to the overall increase in the cost of the 2008 Thanksgiving dinner.

Some are placing the blame on the ethanol industry, even though the Renewable Fuels Association has calculated that only 1.4% of price for the typical holiday meal for 10 this Thanksgiving can be attributed to the U.S. ethanol industry’s demand for corn.

The Associated Press had an interesting take on the turkey prices in an article last week, which uses the National Turkey Federation as its source saying that “consumers will see good prices this year” for turkeys. At the same time, the article quotes the Farm Bureau survey, without noting the fact that turkey makes up the majority of the price increase for the meal!

The article included comments from Keith Shoemaker, chief executive of Butterball, blaming corn prices and ethanol - not for higher turkey prices for the consumer, but for lower profits for the companies.

”In 2008, it was kind of the perfect storm. Corn prices were high, there was oversupply and speculation helped to drive it more,” Shoemaker said. ”Ethanol helped to drive it more and the value of U.S. currency made it cheaper for other people to import grain, and also import turkey.”

The turkey industry has also had to reverse direction — after having a good year in 2006, producers ramped up production the next year and are now having a tough time scaling back, Shoemaker said.

What they are trying to do now is cut production in order to boost prices EVEN MORE! That means you might want to buy two turkeys this year and freeze one for next year.

Add This Permalink Comments | 1

Quick Shot

by Cindy Zimmerman on Nov 21, 2008

Investigate Food Companies

The October Consumer Price Index offers definitive proof that the food companies are sticking it to consumers even though prices for virtually everything else are down.

CPI graphA report by the Renewable Fuels Association this week notes that “the excuse for these prices hikes given by big food companies does not pass the smell test.” That is an understatement. It literally stinks to high Heaven. What food companies are calling “sticky prices” really amounts to “sticky fingers.” They are out and out stealing from American consumers and Congress should be pulling them in for hearings to explain themselves.

According to the report:

Big Food often suggests a “lag effect” exists before changes in commodity prices are reflected at the retail level (they say that’s why food prices haven’t come down, despite the plunge commodity prices). However, it is clear there was no “lag effect” in early 2007. When the producer price index (PPI) for farm products increased rapidly, food companies reacted quickly, as demonstrated by the accelerated trend in the consumer price index (CPI) for food. And as producer prices for farm products have dropped dramatically since June, food inflation continues to increase at a faster‐than‐normal rate.

You can see this in the graph (for a better view, see RFA’s report). What is more outrageous is the food companies’ higher‐than‐expected earnings for the quarter that ended in September 2008, due in large part to higher prices for consumers.

Tyson Foods—the world’s largest meat processor and an outspoken opponent of renewable fuels—reported a 50 percent increase in net income in the quarter ended September 27, 2008.4 Tyson’s latest earnings press release cited “higher average sales prices” for pork, beef, and chicken as a major reason for the boost in revenues.

With the economy the way it is today, consumers should not be paying higher than average prices for food in order to increase profits for food companies. This is just wrong and the American public should be demanding that something be done about it immediately.

Add This Permalink Comments | 0

Quick Shot

by Cindy Zimmerman on Nov 20, 2008

Ethanol Podcast on Cellulosic Ethanol Issues

Ethanol Report PodcastThe third annual Cellulosic Ethanol Summit was held this week in Coral Gables, Florida and Renewable Fuels Association president and CEO Bob Dinneen was once again chairman of the summit.

Cellulosic Summit 08 Bob DinneenIn this “Ethanol Report” podcast, Dinneen discusses a number of issues – including the race to commercialize cellulosic ethanol, the new administration, getting more flex fuel vehicles on the road, the continuing attacks from the food industry, and the all important land use issue.

You can listen to “The Ethanol Report” on-line here:

Or you can subscribe to this podcast by following this link.

Add This Permalink Comments | 0

Quick Shot

by Matt Hartwig on Nov 19, 2008

Obama’s energy team: Talk to us!

Heather Zichal on Change.govs Energy & Enviro TeamPresident-elect Barack Obama’s Energy & Environment Policy Transition Team is asking for your feedback on energy issues.  Transition Co-Chairman John Podesta emailed supporters today with a brief overview of the transition and how it will engage Americans in developing policy.

They included a video of the taskforce working and an interview with our friend Heather Zichal.  Zichal joined a radio program sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association last month and outlined Obama’s pro-ethanol views.

Submit your comments to the transition team at Change.gov.

Add This Permalink Comments | 0

Anti-Ethanol Group Loses Credibility

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer says “almost nobody” is talking about the biofuels industry “going backward” - just a few notable exceptions like the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the governor of Texas.

Ed SchaferSpeaking to the media after a speech at the Cellulosic Ethanol Summit Wednesday, Schafer said the group that held a press conference yesterday calling for an end to ethanol subsidies “stood up there with no credibility whatsoever,” when they claimed that it will take 18-24 months for the lower commodity prices to bring food prices back down.

“I just think that they are totally off base,” Schafer said. “They’re trying to justify their corporate policy in increasing costs to the consumer by blaming it on somebody else - that’s just simply wrong.”

Schafer is especially concerned that the group is working against important public policy for energy independence. “Why would be they be against energy independence?” he asked. “They’re working against economic activity. Why would they be against economic activity?”

Why indeed. He thinks in the end they will get what they deserve, “which will likely be lower purchases of their products because of their increased prices.

I asked the secretary several other questions relating to the biofuels industry, including what he sees as the Bush administration legacy regarding biofuels, his trip this week to Brazil for an International Conference on Biofuels and whether an auto industry bailout might mean more flex fuel vehicles.

Listen to my Q&A with Schafer here:

Add This Permalink Comments | 0