Grocery price 'blackout' does not freeze consumer bills, analysis shows

An analysis of decades of data shows the grocery industry's annual supplier price "blackout" does not stop prices from rising for consumers. The practice sees major chains refuse certain price increases from their suppliers for about three months starting each November. Statistics Canada data reveals that November, January and December are among the months with the largest average monthly increases in food prices. The analysis covers the Consumer Price Index for food purchased from stores from October 1996 to September 2026.

The commercial policy is intended to give retailers predictability during the busy holiday season. It primarily affects packaged goods, with fresh products generally treated differently. "Freezing suppliers’ prices does not mean freezing the grocery bill," the analysis states. Retail prices can change due to shifting promotions, inventory turnover and adjustments to retail strategies, even if supplier price requests are restricted.

Many factors influence food inflation, including weather, exchange rates, transportation costs and seasonal supply conditions. The industry justifies the blackout by citing the need to manage procurement costs during the high-demand holiday period. "Managing a national grocery network in December is no small task," the analysis notes. However, the report argues that an operational benefit for retailers does not automatically become a financial benefit for households.

READ MORE: Scotiabank warns diesel price shock will raise grocery and shelter costs by 2026

READ MORE: Strategy fatigue sets in as Canadians dial back grocery cost-cutting

"Without evidence that it delivers savings at the checkout, presenting it as a consumer affordability measure is far-fetched," the analysis states. The argument deserves reassessment given modern retail systems for managing inventory and forecasting demand. Suppliers' costs continue to change even when retailers stop accepting price increases, forcing manufacturers to absorb higher expenses or seek recovery later. One consequence is that price increase requests may be brought forward before the blackout or deferred until it ends. "The policy could therefore change the timing of price adjustments rather than eliminate the underlying pressure," the analysis states. This possibility requires investigation and should not be treated as a proven explanation for the monthly price pattern seen in the data.

The Canada Grocery Code of Conduct provides a framework for examining these commercial relationships. Its emphasis on transparency and good faith makes the terms of a blackout a legitimate subject for scrutiny. Questions include whether suppliers receive adequate notice and if exceptions for unexpected cost shocks are clearly defined. The financial ability to absorb three months of rising costs varies greatly between a large multinational and a small Canadian processor.

"A policy that provides certainty to a retailer may create considerable uncertainty elsewhere in the supply chain," the analysis notes. The broader issue involves how costs, risks and bargaining power are distributed throughout the food system. Consumers need a competitive supply chain with viable suppliers and retailers. They also deserve clear distinctions between policies that simplify business operations and those proven to improve affordability. "If the blackout delivers measurable savings to households, the industry should provide the evidence," the analysis concludes. "Until then, Canadians have little reason to confuse frozen supplier negotiations with frozen grocery prices."

With files from Substack