Amidst the controversial situation surrounding the prices of eggs, the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) issued a gazette notification in August stipulating a maximum retail price (MRP) for eggs. The new MRP of a white egg and a brown egg is Rs. 44 and Rs. 46, respectively. However, amidst opposition and also a decision by the Court of Appeal to suspend the said gazette, the MRPs did not come into effect. One of the main arguments in that regard was that MRPs should be realistic, although it is completely acceptable to set MRPs to protect consumers. 

Setting MRPs for goods, especially for food items, is not a task as simple as some might think. While protecting the consumers’ right to obtain a quality product for a fair price, it is also absolutely necessary to ensure that sellers and producers of a commodity also receive a fair price for what they produce. Decisions that benefit only one of these parties cannot be considered sensible, and they have the potential to greatly affect the other party. However, Sri Lanka appears to have completely ignored the importance of balancing these two aspects. In the case of egg prices, many have prioritised supporting consumers while treating egg producers and traders as enemies of the consumers. However, in reality, both these parties can be considered victims of the economic crisis, and both these groups are in need of assistance. While consumers face a nutrition and food-related challenge, egg traders and producers face a financial challenge that threatens the future of their industry.

It is not a secret that there are egg traders, middlemen, and producers who are attempting to take undue advantage of this situation, and a number of such allegations have been levelled by those employed in the industry. Although it is a matter that has an impact on egg prices, it should not be used as an excuse to require egg traders and producers to provide eggs at unrealistic prices, since it is the massive increase in the cost of production of eggs that led to the overall increase in egg prices. Irregularities and unfair practices in the industry should be addressed separately. 

Undoubtedly, decisions with regard to egg prices should be as fair and realistic as possible. If these decisions benefit consumers but put the future of an entire industry at risk, then those are not sustainable decisions, regardless of how attractive they may seem in the long run. In fact, in the case of egg prices, there is a question regarding whether Sri Lanka has identified its priorities. Instead of trying to stabilise an industry that has been affected by the economic crisis, and protecting both the goods providers and consumers within that industry, the authorities seem to be trying to protect only the consumers.

The authorities need to understand that setting MRPs or importing eggs are most certainly not going to resolve this issue; they are merely short-term steps that provide short-term relief to consumers. They should use these short-term relief mechanisms to find sustainable solutions, such as looking into reducing the cost of production of eggs and eradicating irregularities such as overpricing. If the authorities continue to treat these short-term steps as solutions and portray a temporary price stability (in the egg market) as the end of the egg crisis, the egg crisis will keep re-emerging, causing more and more adverse impacts on consumers as well as egg traders and producers.