Trump’s beef with packers and Canada’s silence at the grill

Contents of the article

Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump announced that his administration would direct the Justice Department research large meat processing companies for allegedly inflating beef prices through collusion and price manipulation. The move, unsurprisingly, drew headlines, applause from ranchers and skepticism from economists. However, north of the border, an awkward question arises: Why hasn't Canada done the same?

Contents of the article

Beef prices have soared on both sides of the 49th parallel. In the U.S., retail prices rose 11% to 14% from last year, depending on price declines. In Canada, the increase was even steeper, by about 14 to 16%, with some premiums down more than 30% since January. Nowhere is the contrast more apparent than at the meat counter. The average U.S. price for 100% ground beef reached $6.32 per pound (about $13.94 per kilogram) in September 2025, an increase of about 11.5% over the year. In Canada, consumers paid an average of C$14.85 per kilogram (approximately C$6.72 per pound), an increase of approximately 13–14%. Even after accounting for exchange rates, Canadians are paying a little more for one of their most basic beef products—proof that our inflation problem is at least as bad as America's, if not worse.

Contents of the article

Contents of the article

Contents of the article

Contents of the article

Washington cites antitrust laws to protect consumers plays well politicallyespecially when it comes to populist rhetoric about “foreign-owned corporations.” The four dominant U.S. packers—Cargill, Tyson, JBS and National Beef—control more than 80% of the market. By ordering a Justice Department investigation, Trump is signaling to American ranchers that he is on their side in protecting domestic agriculture from multinational giants. Whether there is evidence of wrongdoing is secondary; the optics of the action matter more than the result.

Ottawa, by contrast, avoids such theatrics. Canada's Competition Bureau operates within a very different legal and cultural framework, one that values ​​calm compliance and long-term leadership over public confrontation. Even if beef prices are rising equally across the country, that in itself is not grounds for investigation. Under Canadian law, proof of “price fixing” requires explicit communication between companies – emails, calls or coordination – rather than simply parallel pricing. High prices, as painful as they may be, are not inherently illegal.

Contents of the article

The reality is that Canada's beef sector is very concentrated – perhaps even more so than America's. Two foreign companies, Cargill and JBS, dominate the federally controlled market. Their plants in High River, Brooks and Guelph process most of the country's cattle. Closing or even scrutinizing these operations could lead to massive job losses, export delays and political fallout in Alberta and Ontario. In a fragile, minority parliament, few ministers want to stoke this firestorm.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Play video

There is also the issue of data and oversight. Unlike the USDA, which publishes detailed weekly data on carcass weights, numbers of animals killed and price dispersion, Canada does not have a centralized data strategy for the agri-food sector. We simply do not have the empirical tools to accurately measure market power. Our Dalhousie University Agri-Food Analytics Laboratory and others have called for greater coordination between the federal and provincial levels on market transparency, but progress has been very slow. Without reliable data, even a willing regulator will investigate in the dark.

Contents of the article

The contrast ultimately comes down to temperament. The United States is acting; Canada is thinking. Washington's reflex is coercion, even if it means overstepping its authority. Ottawa's instinct is to negotiate – quietly encouraging voluntary codes of conduct and dialogue among industry players. Canadians like to solve problems through consensus rather than confrontation. This is why the federal government still prefers to talk about supply chain “sustainability” rather than competitiveness.

However, this cautious stance comes at a cost. When prices rise sharply—as they did this year—Canadians naturally wonder whether the system is working for them or against them. The Competition Bureau's limited capacity and chronic underfunding fuel public skepticism. Meanwhile, the US president's “anti-packer” views are making Canadian consumers feel like their own government is asleep at the switch.

Contents of the article

However, we should not romanticize Trump's move. His directive may work well in rural states, but investigations do not automatically lead to lower grocery bills. The underlying drivers – limited livestock supply, drought, high feed costs and global demand – won't go away with subpoenas. What could help both countries are policies that make domestic recycling more efficient and less vulnerable to shocks.

Canada doesn't need political theater; it needs better regulatory foresight, data transparency and a serious look at how carbon prices, labor shortages and infrastructure costs affect competitiveness. It is easy to punish companies without evidence. Creating an environment where competition thrives is more difficult, but much more productive.

— Sylvain Charlebois is director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor podcast, and visiting researcher at McGill University.

Contents of the article