Ethanol Production Is Not Reducing Food
Supplies
By
Steve Grasz -Special
to the
Arizona
Daily Star -
Tucson
,
Arizona
| Published: 06.02.2008
If
truth is the first casualty of war, it appears the "food fight" being
waged by anti-ethanol interests has nearly achieved its first casualty.
The false idea that ethanol
production is causing high food prices, and even food shortages around the
world, has been so frequently asserted that Americans have begun to blindly
accept the premise.
However, when the facts are examined it is clear the accusations are untrue.
Let's examine several of the myths about ethanol:
Myth
1: Ethanol is made from
"food grains."
Fact:
Ethanol is made from "feed grains" such as corn and sorghum.
"Food grains" usually refers to wheat and rice. Blaming ethanol for
wheat and rice shortages is unfounded. The type of corn used to produce ethanol
is otherwise used primarily for livestock feed (about 90 percent); not for human
consumption.
Myth
2: Ethanol "consumes"
a huge share of
U.S.
corn production.
Fact:
In 2006,
U.S.
farmers produced 10.74 billion bushels of corn and 1.8 billion bushels went to
produce ethanol. The share going to ethanol is increasing.
However,
making ethanol does not "consume" the corn. Ethanol production
separates the starch from the other components. The protein and other nutrients
remain, but in a less bulky form. One-third of the corn is converted to a high
value livestock feed called distillers grain (by dry milling) or corn gluten
feed (by wet milling).
Myth
3: Use of corn for ethanol
production is creating food shortages and causing starvation around the world.
Fact:
The
U.S.
is exporting more corn today than at any time in history. Exports in
2007-08 were 2.25 billion bushels, 6 percent more than in 2006-07. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture recently raised its corn export estimates to 2.5
billion bushels. This puts corn exports at 63 million metric tons, a new record.
Myth
4: Ethanol is responsible for
high food prices.
Fact:
The price of corn is a very small factor in overall food prices. Only about 10
percent of
U.S.
corn is processed directly into human food products (such as corn syrup, starch
and cereals). Only 1.3% of the 45% increase in food prices is actually
attributable to corn or ethanol. In contrast, the price of oil has a
significant impact on food prices, as does the value of the dollar. Some
analysts have estimated that oil prices would be 15 percent higher but for
ethanol production and its replacement of large quantities of petroleum.
Ethanol
currently supplies the same amount of fuel to Americans as our fifth-largest
foreign supplier. Without it, gas prices (and food prices) would be even 15%
higher.
Less
than 20 cents of each food dollar goes toward on-farm costs like grain.
The value of the corn in an 18-ounce box of corn flakes cereal was 4.9 cents in
2007 (with corn at $3.40 a bushel). Today, with corn at nearly $6 a bushel, the
value of the corn in a box of corn flakes is about 8.75 cents. So, even in a
pure corn product, the impact on consumers is modest.
America
needs ethanol now, more than ever. The
U.S.
imports 62 percent of its petroleum supply and this is projected to increase to
77 percent by 2025. The last time a new oil refinery was built in the
United States
was more than 30 years ago. Oil Production is at full capacity at 85 millions
barrels per day and demand is 87 million barrels per day. Oil Reserves are
artificially inflated and have been for years.
Taxpayers
spend billions each year on military expenditures to protect our foreign oil
supply while Congress refuses to expand domestic drilling for environmental
reasons.
In
contrast, ethanol is made from renewable resources we grow right here in the
United States
. Its use reduces our dependence on imported oil. The
U.S.
ethanol industry will have the capacity to produce 10 billion gallons in 2008.
The
idea that people must choose between food and ethanol is a false and dangerous
premise.
The
next time you hear or read that ethanol production is starving children overseas
or causing food prices to soar, consider the all-time record amounts of corn
being exported from the United States — and think again.
Food or Fuel?
A common objection to biomass energy
production is that it could divert agricultural production away from food crops
in a hungry world -- even leading to mass starvation in the poor countries.
True or not?
Not true: at best it
'
s an oversimplification of a complex issue. It just doesn't
'
t work that way, and neither does hunger.
This is a sound explanation from the Foundation for Alternative Energy (FAE) in
Slovakia
:
"A major criticism often leveled against biomass, particularly against
large-scale fuel production, is that it could divert agricultural production
away from food crops, especially in developing countries.
The basic argument is that energy-crop programs compete with food crops in a
number of ways (agricultural, rural investment, infrastructure, water,
fertilizers, skilled labor etc.) and thus cause food shortages and price
increases.
However, this so-called
'
food versus fuel
'
controversy appears to have been exaggerated in many cases. The subject is far
more complex than has generally been presented since agricultural and export
policy and the politics of food availability are factors of far greater
importance.
The argument should be analyzed against the background of the world
'
s (or an individual country
'
s or region
'
s) real food situation of food supply and demand (ever-increasing food surpluses
in most industrialized and a number of developing countries), the use of food as
animal feed, the under-utilized agricultural production potential, the increased
potential for agricultural productivity, and the advantages and disadvantages of
producing biofuels.
The most important difference between ethanol
CO2 emissions and gasoline CO2 emissions is that the CO2 that is emitted when
burning ethanol is CO2 that was already in the atmosphere, and petroleum CO2 is
“new” CO2 that was safely locked away underground. Corn absorbs CO2,
and it is released back into the atmosphere when we make ethanol and when we
burn it in cars. Ethanol essentially “reduces, reuses, and recycles” CO2.
Gasoline takes CO2 that we never had to deal with, and adds it to the
atmosphere.
Starvation?
It is also often said that increased
bioenergy use in the developed countries, particularly in the
US
, would cut US food exports and lead to starvation in the
Third World
.
Aside from lacking the essential analysis of food supply and demand outlined
above, this argument leaves out the potential of set-aside land and marginal
land, it ignores the large amounts of biomass currently wasted in various ways
in the developed countries (from agricultural and forestry residues to
commercial food-processing by-products to the huge amounts of waste cooking oil
dumped in sewers and landfills, etc), and it relies on a mythical view of the
developed nations
'
role in feeding the world.
These are typical objections to biomass energy production:
"Any attempt to grow fuel for general use would require a massive increase
in crop yields at a time when we are unlikely to be able
to grow enough food to feed everyone without affecting other species. To go
'
green
'
in developed countries at the expense of food production may well result in
effective genocide in other, less developed countries, even our own poor would
not be exempt."
"Present food shortages throughout the world call attention to the
importance of continuing US exports of corn and other grains for human food to
reduce malnutrition and starvation. Expanding ethanol production could entail
diverting essential cropland from producing corn needed to sustain human life to
producing corn for ethanol factories."
There is no food shortage
The world already grows more than enough food
to feed everyone. About a billion people now don
'
t have enough food to meet basic daily needs, but that
'
s NOT because there
'
s not enough food. There
'
s more food per capita now than there
'
s ever been before -- enough to make everyone fat. There
'
s enough to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day: two and a half
pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and
nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs.
People starve because they
'
re victims of an inequitable economic system, not because they
'
re victims of scarcity and overpopulation.
It
'
s a myth that most of the food is grown in the rich countries. The
US
, for instance, is the world
'
s biggest-ever food IMPORTER. "
US
exports of corn and other grains for human food to reduce malnutrition and
starvation" is another myth. Most
US
grain exports go to feed livestock, not humans. Much of it is also used as
feedstock for industry. It can also undercut local food production, leading to
less local food security, not more.
Facts
The
US
and the other industrialized countries are the world
'
s major food importers, importing 71% of the total value of food items in world
trade (Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics 1994 (New York
and Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 1995), table
3.2).
The
US
imports about $1.5 billion worth of beef a year (Food and Agriculture Organization,
FAO Trade Yearbook 1995, vol. 49 (Rome: FAO, 1996), 160, table 12).
The
US
imports 54% more in farm commodities than it exports (FAO Trade Yearbook 1995,
table 6), much of it from countries where the majority lack a healthy diet. The
US
is in fact the biggest food importer the world has ever seen.
See:
The Myth of Scarcity
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/w98v5n1.html
12 Myths About Hunger
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html
US grain exports
There are many different fuel crops and many
different ways of growing them, from the eco-unfriendly, chemical- and
energy-intensive industrial farming methods to sustainable methods which
conserve or even improve the environment, with equal or higher yields.
In the
US
, the main fuel crops are corn (maize), for ethanol, and soybeans producing soy
oil for biodiesel. These are the crops which it
'
s alleged should not be diverted from "human food to reduce malnutrition
and starvation".
"We have the ability in the United States to grow the grain to feed the
world" -- Allen Anderson, Chairman of the MARC 2000 coalition of
agribusiness and transportation interests, testimony before the Senate
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, April 30, 1998
"Our mission is to feed and nourish a growing world population" --
Archer Daniels Midland, multinational grain trading company, November 22, 1999
"Helping farmers grow a wide variety of goods to feed a growing world"
-- Cargill, Inc, multinational grain trading company, November 22, 1999
But research by Mark Muller and Richard Levins of the Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy reveals a rather different picture:
See "Feeding the World?" (pdf)
http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publications.cfm?accountID=258&refID=36106
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that more than a billion
bushels of corn went unused last year [2000]." --
University
of
Wisconsin
http://www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?get=6810
Fuel Ethanol and Food Supply, Canadian Renewable Fuels Association -- Extensive
production of ethanol from grain will not detract from
Canada
’s ability to feed its own citizens and supply large quantities o f
high-quality grains to export markets.
http://www.greenfuels.org/ethafood.html
Half of
US
food goes to waste, 25/11/2004 -- As the US celebrates Thanksgiving, a new
study reveals that almost half the food in the country goes to waste... The new
study, from the University of Arizona (UA) in
Tucson
, indicates that a shocking forty to fifty per cent of all food ready for
harvest never gets eaten... Not only is edible food discarded that could feed
people who need it, but the rate of loss, even partially corrected, could save
US consumers and manufacturers tens of billions of dollars each year.
http://foodproductiondaily.com/news/
ng.asp?id=56340&n=dh330&c=t zlvsrxywshqwyj
The Real Causes Of Hunger
The United Nations Development Programme says
the effects of globalization and increasing economic integration have led to the
rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in nearly every way.
UN statistics provide evidence of the widening gap between rich and poor: In
nine years, the income ratio between the top 20% and the bottom 20% has
increased from 60:1 to 74:1. Eighty countries have less revenue than they did a
decade ago. The assets of the 200 richest people exceed the combined income of
41% of the world
'
s total population. The assets of the top three billionaires are more than the
combined GNP of all least developed countries and their 600 million people. The
overall consumption of the richest fifth of the world
'
s people is 16 times that of the poorest fifth. About 840 million people are
malnourished. Nearly 340 million women are not expected to survive to age 40.
Nearly 160 million children are malnourished. More than 250 million children are
working as child laborers.
Human Development Report 1999
http://www.undp.org/hdro/report.html
UN Human Development Report finds social inequality and poverty increasing
worldwide
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/aug1999/un-a06.shtml
Of the world
'
s 6 billion people, 2.8 billion live on less than $2 a day, and 1.2 billion on
less than $1 a day.
Global Poverty Report:
Genoa
G8
Summit
July 2001
http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/library/G8_2001.htm
World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty
http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty/index.htm
The true picture may even be worse -- both the World Bank and the United Nations
Development Programme, which produces the annual Human Development Report, have
been accused of massaging the numbers on poverty.
"Global Falsehoods: How the World Bank and the UNDP Distort the Figures on
Global Poverty" by Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University
of
Ottawa
http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html
"World Bank dilutes report -- Agencies claim poverty document was
censored" Guardian (
London
) September 13, 2000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4063044,00.html
"World Bank cooks poverty statistics" by Chakravarthi Raghavan, Chief
Editor of SUNS (South-North Development Monitor), Third World Network Features,
August 2000
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/homeless/2001/msg00289.html
Economic growth is projected as the road to overcome global poverty. With
economic growth of $100 the rich 20% of the world population pocket $83 and the
poorest 20% get $1.40. Global economic growth is therefore a highly inefficient
way to help the global poor.
In probably the most comprehensive study to date, Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker and
other researchers at the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that
economic growth and rates of improvement in life expectancy, child mortality,
education levels and literacy all declined in the era of global corporatization
(1980-2000) compared to 1960-1980. "For economic growth and almost all of
the other indicators, the last 20 years have shown a very clear decline in
progress as compared with the previous two decades... The poorest group went
from a per capita GDP growth rate of 1.9 percent annually in 1960-80, to a
decline of 0.5 percent per year (1980-2000). By almost every measure, the
progress achieved in the two decades of globalization has been considerably less
than the progress in the period from 1960 to 1980", especially in the low
and middle-income countries. Millions of people who could have escaped a
lifetime of poverty under the former rules of market economics under democratic
limits were unable to do so under the new rules of global corporate governance.
-- The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000 - Twenty Years of Diminished
Progress, by Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen July 11, 2001
http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm
Wealth extraction causes poverty, and poverty causes hunger.
See Poverty
and hunger -- The causes of poverty, The myth of scarcity
Fuel And Food
In any event, with most biofuels you remove
the energy and are still left with the food -- or "feed" more often
(for livestock). With ethanol the feed value is enhanced: the distillers dried
grains by-product is more nutritious than the original unprocessed grain
(because of the yeast). With biodiesel you
'
re left with the oilseed cake after the oil has been pressed out -- again,
depending on what seed is used, this is usually a highly nutritious,
high-protein livestock feed.
With biofuels you CAN have your cake and eat it too!
As for poor countries, local production of biofuels from locally grown crops,
where appropriate, can cut dependence and cash expenditure on imported fuels,
increase community self-reliance, and provide a spur for local job creation and
growth. It can also cut dependence on fuel wood, which is often scarce and
causes immense health problems through indoor air-pollution. And, as we
'
ve seen above, growing biofuel crops can encourage food-crop production rather
than reducing it.
There's NO E85 available, but the State has
over 1000 Flex Fuel vehicles that could be using it. Selling at $2.50 or $2.60
per gallon is definitely less expensive than $4 a gallon for gasoline; and the
price for gasoline keeps going up everyday. E85 burns cleaner, is better
for the environment and costs less!
