Valentine’s Day shoppers face soaring chocolate prices
Heart shaped boxes of chocolate are displayed for sale in Key West. (Jen Golbeck/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Valentine’s Day shoppers may feel jilted by runaway chocolate prices.
Chocolate prices soared 14.4% over the initial weeks of 2026 when compared to the same period a year earlier, nearly doubling the pace of price increases at the start of 2025, according to findings shared with ABC News by intelligence firm Datasembly.
The sharp rise in chocolate prices owes to a cocoa shortage caused primarily by adverse weather and crop disease in West Africa, which accounts for about 70% of the world’s cocoa, some analysts told ABC News.
The dearth of cocoa, analysts said, has ratcheted up input costs for chocolate makers and vaulted retail prices, leading to sticker shock in grocery and candy store aisles.
“There is a record gap between supply and demand,” David Branch, sector manager at the Wells Fargo Agri-Food Institute, told ABC News.
Raw cocoa bean prices have risen dramatically in recent years due to the choke in supply. A metric ton of cocoa beans cost as much $12,000 last year, Branch said. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, cocoa bean prices hovered between $2,000 and $2,500 per metric ton, International Monetary Fund data shows.
In recent months, supply problems have begun to ease, bringing cocoa bean costs down significantly from last year’s peak. A metric ton of cocoa beans now runs about $3,700.
Still, chocolate prices remain highly elevated as chocolate makers sell through candy made with cocoa beans bought earlier, analysts said.
“A lot of manufacturers bought cocoa when prices were high and that’s still very much moving through the supply chain,” David Ortega, a food economist at Michigan State University, told ABC News.
In November, the White House announced framework trade agreements with some Latin American countries in an attempt to ease surging prices for grocery staples such as cocoa. While the U.S. imports a significant share of cocoa from West Africa, supply also comes from Latin American countries like Ecuador, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says.
“Today’s announcements underscore the Administration’s unwavering commitment to fair and balanced trade at every opportunity to protect and strengthen our economic and national security,” the White House said when it unveiled the framework agreements.
Prices remain high for some other imported food items, such as coffee and beef.
Coffee prices surged about 18% in January compared to a year earlier, while ground beef prices climbed more than 17% over that span, Bureau of Labor Statistics data on Friday showed.
Grocery prices are rising at a faster pace than prices overall, climbing 2.9% over the year ending in January, according to BLS data.
Chocolate price hikes will likely ease over the coming months, some analysts said, noting the eventual pass through of lower cocoa prices into the cost of chocolate bought at stores. Analysts emphasized, however, the uncertainty surrounding the outlook due to the chance of weather-related challenges for growers.
Branch, of Wells Fargo, said chocolate prices could even fall by the latter part of this year as manufacturers find cost relief and pass it along to shoppers.
“If market trends stay where they are, we’ll see lower prices for Halloween,” Branch said.
A sign displays the prices of unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel at a Chevron gas station in Los Angeles on Monday, May 4, 2026. (Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(LOS ANGELES) — A Chevron gas station in Los Angeles elicited headlines in recent weeks for charging an eye-popping $8.71 a gallon, becoming an emblem for the spike in fuel costs set off by the Iran war.
Sky-high gas prices nationwide owe primarily to a historic oil shock that followed Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. But a lesser-known contributor helps account for just how high prices have gotten, at least at some name-brand stations selling fuel from the likes of Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil.
Branded stations, which make up almost half of gas stations nationwide, charge about 6 cents more per gallon on average than their unbranded counterparts, according to data from the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS), a Dow Jones company, for the week ending on May 2. That price gap marks little change from where it stood before the war, OPIS data showed.
In at least one state, the price disparity runs significantly higher. Gas at a Chevron station in California costs an average of 48 cents more per gallon than the price at an unbranded station, the California Energy Commission (CEC) found in 2024. After Chevron, the most expensive average gas prices in California were found at Shell, 76 and Arco-branded stations, the CEC said.
Some analysts said the higher price of branded gas is due to additional costs, such as proprietary additives in the fuel, as well as a producer’s marketing budget and the payment forked over by stations for guaranteed access to its gas – costs that are passed on to consumers.
Other analysts and a California state watchdog, however, have said that the price disparity may stem from the market dominance of a handful of companies, allowing them to drive up the retail price.
The scrutiny comes as some large oil companies like British Petroleum, Valero and Marathon Petroleum report soaring profits amid the Iran war, though Chevron and Exxon saw profits decline due in part to one-time paper losses stemming from financial hedges meant to protect them against a possible price drop.
The price of an average gallon of gas currently stands at $4.52, an increase of $1.54 per gallon since the war began on Feb. 28, AAA data showed. That amounts to a nearly 52% jump in about two-and-a-half months.
Patrick Penfield, a professor of supply chain practice at Syracuse University, said the recent surge in prices could prompt a reexamination of the costs baked into the price at the pump, including the added charge for branded gas.
“When you see such big price increases for gasoline, everything should be looked at,” Penfield said.
Chevron did not directly respond to an ABC News request for comment. However, Jim Stanley, director of media relations at the Western States Petroleum Association, a industry trade group, contacted ABC News at Chevron’s request.
Drivers choose branded gas stations as a matter of customer preference centered on issues like lighting, bathroom cleanliness or location, Stanley said.
“Any branded product – whether it’s medication or groceries or clothing – is going to generally cost more than a generic alternative,” he added.
Stanley further said roughly 95% of branded gas stations operate as franchises, meaning they enter into agreements with big-name companies but retain self-ownership.
“Branded gas stations can have these brand standards that they hold their franchisees to: a higher standard than an independently owned store,” Stanley added.
Kelly Davila, a spokesperson for Exxon, said the company doesn’t “own or operate our retail stations.”
Shell declined to respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Phillips 66, the parent company of 76, did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment. Neither did Marathon Petroleum, the parent company of Arco.
Branded gas stations account for about 45% of stations nationwide, selling gas under the name of a major fuel company, OPIS data shows. Each of the brands touts a unique blend of additives that it says improves the gasoline and eases its effect on car engines. The extra ingredients go beyond the minimum standards mandated by federal and some state regulators, Denton Cinquegrana, chief oil analyst at Dow Jones Energy, told ABC News.
“At the end of the day, all gasoline has to meet a federal standard,” Cinquegrana said. “The branded gasoline goes above and beyond that minimum requirement.”
Higher prices charged by name-brand stations – a dynamic that stretches back decades – can be traced in part to spending on the development and production of the additives, Cinquegrana added: “They’re trying to recoup some of that investment.”
Some analysts, however, said it remains unclear whether the added ingredients deliver a meaningfully improved product.
“Regardless of each company’s claim, there is not sound evidence supporting the fact that additives do indeed improve the quality of gasoline, at least to the extent that the consumers perceive it to,” a study issued by the non-profit RAND corporation found in 2010.
The California Division of Petroleum Market Oversight (DPMO), a state watchdog agency, last year said it was “unable to independently verify claims that branded gasoline is superior to unbranded gasoline.”
When asked about studies disputing the value of additives, Stanley, of the Western States Petroleum Association, declined to comment.
The higher price of branded gas also owes to marketing budgets borne by the big-name companies as well as elevated costs paid by retailers as part of agreements with the brands that guarantee them priority access in the event of a supply shortage, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a study of the issue published in 2005.
“Gas stations pay more for a contract for branded gasoline because they have a guarantee of supply. And they have a major global brand backing them up,” Cinquegrana said.
Some analysts and a California watchdog disputed those explanations. Rather, they said, the higher prices may reflect market power enjoyed by the large firms, giving them leeway to raise prices without fear of competition.
“My own reading of the data is that the branded companies are able to take advantage of a lack of a competitive market and are acting almost like an oligopoly,” Paasha Mahdavi, a professor of energy governance and political economy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told ABC News, using a term that describes an industry dominated by a small number of companies.
Mahdavi focused on the relatively large price gap in California between branded and unbranded gas, which has widened in recent years.
In 2019, branded gas from companies like ExxonMobil, Arco, Valero and Chevron cost an average of 20 cents more per gallon in California; within five years, that price disparity had climbed to 31 cents, according to a DPMO study issued last year. Over that same period, the profitability of oil refiners in California has increased, DPMO said.
The rise in refinery profitability may be traced to the “exercise of market power by gasoline suppliers,” DPMO added, saying 90% of in-state refining capacity is controlled by four companies. As a result, elevated wholesale prices could be passed along the supply chain, DPMO said.
The largest companies appear to have “pretty strong control of not only upstream assets like oil and gas, but also control of the gas stations that are preferred by consumers based on location,” Mahdavi said. “They’re able to charge a higher premium.”
Valero did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Stanley, of the Western States Petroleum Association, said he is unsure why California features a larger gap in price between branded and unbranded gas than other states. One contributor, he said, could be the relatively low density of gas stations in the state.
“Competition brings down costs. When a retailer doesn’t see that same level of competition, you can see that reflected in higher prices.”
Stanley faulted environmental regulations in California for high overall gas prices.
“Branded or unbranded, gas in California is the most expensive in the country. That’s because of supply constraints that have been created by state policies.”
Mahdavi further said that the locations of branded gas stations may carry additional costs due to higher rents, accounting for some of the price gap.
The rise in prices during the Iran war offers an opportunity to revisit the factors that contribute to the price at the pump, according to Mahdavi.
“We can shine more light on what is driving these higher prices,” he said.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a press conference following the Federal Open Markets Committee meeting at the Federal Reserve on January 28, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A jobs report to be released on Wednesday will provide a key barometer of the U.S. economy as policymakers grapple with a combination of elevated inflation and sluggish hiring.
The labor market slowed sharply last year, prompting interest rate cuts at the Federal Reserve and concern among some observers about the nation’s economic prospects.
The U.S. added an average of 49,000 jobs each month in 2025, which marked a staggering decline from 168,000 monthly jobs added over the prior year.
Economists expect employers to have hired 55,000 workers in January, amounting to a slight uptick from 50,000 hires in December. Still, the anticipated performance would barely register above the lackluster hiring of a typical month last year.
In a bright spot, however, the unemployment rate remains low by historical standards. Unemployment stood at 4.4% in December, and economists expect that level to have been left unchanged in January.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics delayed the release of the January data due to a partial government shutdown last week, which helps explain why the jobs report is set to be issued on a Wednesday in the middle of the month, rather than its customary release on the month’s first Friday.
The jobs report will arrive weeks after a series of job cuts that slashed tens of thousands of workers combined at a handful of name-brand companies.
Amazon said last month it planned to cut about 16,000 employees as it seeks to “strengthen” its business by reducing “layers” and “bureaucracy” within its workforce.
A day earlier, UPS announced it plans to cut as many as 30,000 employees this year. Pinterest also unveiled an effort to slash 15% of its staff, according to a securities filing. The company boasts about 4,500 employees worldwide, a securities filing shows.
So far, the cooling labor market has avoided widespread job losses, making the recent flurry of layoffs an outlier, analysts previously told ABC News. The high-profile cuts reflect trends in tech and some other sectors, however, where companies have reversed a pandemic-era hiring blitz and pivoted in response to artificial intelligence.
The Fed slashed interest rates three consecutive times last year in an effort to boost the flagging labor market. In January, the Fed opted to hold interest rates steady, taking a cautious approach due in part to elevated inflation.
The benchmark rate stands at a level between 3.5% and 3.75%. That figure marks a significant drop from a recent peak attained in 2023, but borrowing costs remain well above a 0% rate established at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Still, Fed Chair Jerome Powell appeared to view the economy in a favorable light, saying it is expanding at a “solid pace” during a Jan. 28 press conference.
“While job gains have remained low, the unemployment rate has shown some signs of stabilization,” Powell added.
Futures markets expect two quarter-point interest rate cuts this year, forecasting the first in June and a second in the fall, according to CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.
In this Jan. 19, 2026, file photo, New York City Comptroller Mark Levine speaks at an event at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in New York. (Jason Mendez/Getty Images for Brooklyn Academy Of Music, FILE)
(NEW YORK) — The top financial officer in New York City on Thursday warned that artificial intelligence could put thousands of workers in the nation’s largest metropolis out of a job as soon as this year, while acknowledging that the ultimate impact of AI remains uncertain.
The only sure thing, New York City Comptroller Mark Levin said in a new report: AI promises a “radical transformation” in the globe’s financial capital, influencing everything from wages to pension payments to Wall Street profits.
Levin, a Democratic former New York City Council member, predicted a range of scenarios both positive and negative, gauging the likelihood of outcomes as bullish as a broad-based productivity boom and as detrimental as mass layoffs.
City policymakers stand to play a central role in the technology’s ultimate fate, Levin added, calling for urgent steps like creating a multi-billion dollar financial cushion in case economic calamity strikes.
“There is no city in America – and perhaps none on earth – more exposed to both the promise and peril of artificial intelligence than New York City. And there are few places with more power to steer the transformation ahead,” Levin said in the report.
New York City hosts “hundreds of firms competing to make New York the capital of applied AI,” Levine added, as well as roughly one million workers who labor in Manhattan office towers, many of whom stand at risk of AI disruption. The high stakes exemplify a reckoning likely to play out in cities nationwide, he said.
“Uncertainty is not an excuse for inaction,” Levin said, saying local policies should complement much-needed efforts at the federal level. “We are not helpless.”
The report comes as the stock market and the economy overall have both come to increasingly rely on massive spending on AI to propel continued growth, even as companies warn of job losses tied to the technology.
A wave of thousands of job cuts attributed to artificial intelligence over recent months has taken hold in industries as diverse as tech and airlines. In April, AI company Anthropic opted against releasing its latest model, Mythos, expressing concern that the tool could be used to bypass cybersecurity protections across the internet.
Blockbuster earnings from chip giant Nvidia on Wednesday, meanwhile, rebuked fears of a slowdown in the rip-roaring pace of growth for the artificial intelligence behemoth.
In his report, Levin assessed five potential scenarios for AI uptake in New York City, focusing on potential economic downsides and benefits of each. The forecast draws upon national AI scenarios developed by Moody’s Analytics, adapting them for New York City, Levin said.
In the most likely outcome, dubbed the “AI-Empowered Economy,” Levin predicted that AI would improve productivity while delivering moderate economic growth, including an average of about 52,000 jobs added each year through 2030. Levin pegged the likelihood of this outcome at 35%.
A more pessimistic scenario, which Levin called “AI Falls Flat,” foresees a drop-off in AI investment and an accompanying stock market slide. If this outcome comes to pass, New York City would lose about 52,500 jobs as soon as this year, suffering temporary ill-effects akin to those that coincide with a recession, Levin said. The probability of this scenario, he added, stands at 25%.
Other possible outcomes include “faster-than-expected AI” adoption that improves productivity but replaces jobs, as well as an “AI shockwave” that upends white-collar employment.
The “most optimistic” of the five scenarios, Levin says, is a “Productivity Boon,” in which AI-driven productivity growth complements job growth, rather than displacing it, boosting compensation in the process. Levin puts the likelihood of this outcome at 15%.
To be sure, Levin said, the potential economic impact of AI remains highly uncertain. Other economic trends unrelated to AI could also hold significant implications for the city’s economy, Levin added, pointing to a historic oil shock that has driven up fuel and grocery prices.
Levin touted the role of local government in responding to the changes wrought by AI, whether they prove favorable or otherwise.
“These are not questions we can leave to Silicon Valley, Washington, or the market alone. New Yorkers must help shape the future ourselves,” Levin said.
