Grocery Inflation Is Cooling But Shoppers Haven’t Forgotten.

Sure, inflation may be easing, but consumers don’t grocery shop based on inflation numbers. They shop based on prices – and grocery prices are still painfully high compared to pre-pandemic levels. That’s an important distinction for food manufacturers and retailers to understand. According to the latest Acosta Group Affordability Tracker, a typical stock-up shopping trip costs approximately $366. That’s $78—or 27%—more than what that same basket cost in 2020. Grocery purchasing power is on the rise, but the consumer concept of value has changed forever

The rate of inflation is not the same as the price level

Much of the discussion about inflation is misleading. When economists say inflation is slowing, consumers often hear that prices are coming down. Usually, they are not. Prices are simply increasing more slowly. That is exactly what has happened with groceries.

The sharpest increases occurred between 2021 and 2023. Since then, food inflation has moderated, but it has continued to build on a substantially higher base. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that food-at-home prices increased another 2.4% during 2025. In July 2026, grocery prices were 2.7% higher than a year earlier. Some categories were rising even faster: fruit and vegetable prices were up 5.1%, while nonalcoholic beverage prices were up 4.1%. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The USDA expects food-at-home prices to increase approximately 2.7% in 2026, slightly above their 20-year historical average. USDA Economic Research Service Therefore, the $78 added to Acosta’s stock-up basket has not disappeared. It has become the new starting point. Consumers understand this even if the language used by economists and the media sometimes obscures it.

Wages have helped—but they have not erased the shock

Acosta’s price-adjusted measure goes beyond simple prices by relating grocery costs to earnings. From 20only through early 20, median hourly earnings for full-time employees rose from $23.93 to $30.88, an increase of about 29%.

With wage growth outpacing food inflation for a time, some of the purchasing power lost during the height of inflation has been regained. When affordability for Acosta’s basket was at its worst in 20data indicated that a median full-time worker had to work about 12.6 hours to pay for it. Now they need to work about 11.9 hours.

While that is a real improvement for households, it is far from a return to prepandemic conditions. For one thing, the improvement has reportedly stalled. Most of the purchasing-power improvement may already have occurred, with future gains depending on wages growing faster than grocery prices. Secondly, median wages do not reflect every household situation.

There are retirees, part-time workers, lower-income households, and workers who have not seen their wages keep up with inflation. All of these demographics will have different levels of affordability for Acosta’ basket. Finally, Americans do not buy groceries in a vacuum. There is also housing, insurance, healthcare, utilities and transportation to pay for. Any of those could offset a higher grocery paycheck. If incomes are stretched to cover essentials other than food, consumers could see reduced purchasing power even if the economic numbers say otherwise.

Consumers learned how to shop differently

The most important finding in Acosta’s report is not that grocery affordability has improved. Consumer behavior has not returned to its pre-inflation baseline. Shoppers continue to:

• Search aggressively for promotions.
• Compare prices across retailers.
• Substitute private-label products for national brands.
• Visit multiple stores to complete a shopping trip.
• Delay or eliminate nonessential purchases.
• Evaluate package sizes and price per unit.
• Trade down to more affordable alternatives.

These are no longer necessarily temporary coping mechanisms. They are becoming established shopping habits. The Federal Reserve’s July 2026 Beige Book similarly found consumers trading down to more affordable products and reducing discretionary purchases as higher prices affected spending. Federal Reserve

Once consumers learn that a store brand performs as well as a national brand, that discovery is difficult to reverse. Once they become accustomed to checking several apps for the best price, waiting for a promotion or calculating unit costs, they do not automatically stop because wage growth improves. Inflation has trained millions of shoppers to become more disciplined buyers.

“Premium” without proof is increasingly vulnerable

This puts mainstream consumer brands in a difficult position. For decades, many brands could rely on name recognition, shelf-space and advertising to command a price premium. But today’s consumer is more likely to ask why they should pay more? What are they getting for their money? “Because we’re XYZ brand” is no longer a sufficient answer.

Categories will need to empower brands to prove value by elevating product performance, using better ingredients, convenience, durability, health benefits or some other benefit that consumers will notice and appreciate. Otherwise, store brand is a smart- not simply budget-conscious- purchase. Retailers are challenged as well.

Discounting may drive short-term sales, but it also conditions customers to wait for the next promotion and never pay full price. Loyalty programs and individualized digital coupons can annoy customers who just want everyday low pricing without having to jump through hoops. Today’s value isn’t created by putting a sale price next to a bogus reference price. Customers have become too smart and have too many resources for comparing options.

The average can also hide a growing divide

The affordability discussion often treats “the consumer” as one homogeneous group. That is a mistake. A $366 stock-up trip means something very different to a six-figure household than it does to a family earning $45,000. Higher-income shoppers may continue purchasing premium products while becoming more selective. Lower-income households may reduce quantities, switch retailers or eliminate categories altogether. This produces a polarized market:

• Affluent shoppers still pay for benefits they consider meaningful.
• Financially pressured shoppers prioritize absolute price and immediate utility.
• Middle-income consumers move between those behaviors depending on the category.

A single pricing, promotion, or packaging strategy cannot effectively serve all three groups. Brands need a stronger price-pack architecture, including affordable entry points, larger-value formats, and premium options with clearly differentiated benefits. Retailers need promotions based on actual shopper needs—not blanket discounting that gives away margin without building loyalty.

The new value mindset is not going away

U.S. consumers spent approximately $2.51 trillion on food in 2025, including $1.10 trillion on food consumed at home. USDA Economic Research Service That enormous market will continue growing. But growth in dollars should not be confused with stronger consumer demand. When prices rise, sales can increase even as shoppers purchase fewer items, switch to cheaper products or become less loyal.

The industry should stop waiting for consumers to “return to normal.” The old normal—when many shoppers paid less attention to unit prices, promotions and private-label alternatives—is gone. Consumers endured one of the fastest increases in grocery costs in decades, adapted their behavior and discovered that more deliberate shopping can save money.

The headline from Acosta’s research is not simply that a stock-up trip costs $78 more. It is that consumers remember how that increase made them feel.

Grocery affordability may be improving, but trust in prices has not fully recovered. Brands and retailers that understand this will compete on demonstrable value, pricing transparency and relevance. Those that continue to assume consumers will eventually resume their old habits may discover that the shopper has moved on—even if inflation has not.