Big Food’s War on Biofuels
by Josh Peterson, Los Angeles, California 
on 12.28.08
photo by zorilla
In 2007, the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association launched a campaign to “change the perceptions about the benefits of biofuels” by linking ethanol production with rising food costs and global food shortages. Ethanol producers defend their product, saying that biofuels do not cause soaring food prices and meal shortages and insinuate that the GMA is the one reaping the benefits of high food prices by scapegoating biofuels. Who exactly is telling the truth?
The Newest Anti-Biofuel Barb
In a recent interview with USA Today,Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld said this:
USA TODAY-Q: Like most companies, you have lobbyists in Washington. What's their agenda with the new administration coming in?Rosenfeld-A: One of the most important agenda items for us is the whole biofuels phenomenon. Forty percent of the food supply is being diverted for use in fuel. There's not a lot of indication that it has a beneficial impact on the environment. Corn-to-ethanol has had a very difficult impact on the cost of food, and I'd like to see the administration take that challenge on.
Q: Can you put a number on how much your costs have gone up?
A: Our costs have gone up significantly in 2006 to 2007 and again in 2008. The particular impact of our biofuels policy is hard to tease out. But there's no question that those policies have had some unintended consequences. We need an administration that is willing to talk about the facts and science as opposed to bending to political pressure to address some of these issues.
Biofuels use 40% percent of the food supply? Not a lot of indication that it has a beneficial impact on the environment? Ethanol is driving up food prices?
Let’s look at those claims.
Biofuels Use 40 Percent of the Food Supply?
I can’t verify those numbers. The American Farm Bureau and economist Bob Young say she is way off the mark. I’m not a mathematician or an economist or an agriculturalist, but that number seems unrealistic.
But if it were true:
More than half of the corn grown in the United States is used to feed livestock. Furthermore, ethanol can be produced without destroying the protein in the kernel. The proteins are converted into meal and fed to animals. There is some food lost in the process, but not enough to reduce the overall food supply by 40%. So forty percent of crops could go to biofuel production, but not forty percent of the food supply. (If that number were to be true.)
US Food Consumption - A Note
In the United States, half the food purchased goes to waste.
Biofuel’s Impact on the Environment
UC Berkeley’s 2006 study shows that ethanol is 10-15% better for the environment than regular gasoline. It’s not exactly a miracle fuel, but we’d be a bit better off, carbon-emissionwise, if everyone used ethanol.
On the other hand, a 2007 study predicts that in the rush to produce biofuel, farmers will tear down forests, use up grasslands and increase overall carbon emissions by doing so.
Another Argument Against Biofuel
There is also concern that an increase in ethanol production will decrease grains fed to livestock and more corn would have to be grown on new land in order to support the livestock and doing that would dramatically increase carbon emissions.
Ethanol producers claim that new technologies and higher crop yields will increase the amount of food produced on the same amount of land. They also promise that biofuels will be made cleaner, greener and more efficiently as time goes on.
I don't know who is right, but the arguments of both sides seem to be based on speculation.
Biofuels Increase Food Prices
It is true. The UN report says that biofuels have caused a 15% percent rise in the price of food. The USDA claims that biofuels are only responsible for a three-percent hike. The USDA may be a bit biased, but a UN expert once called biofuels a crime against humanity. So they be a little biased as well.
Biofuels: A Worst-Case Scenario
Let’s go with the worst-case scenario. Biofuels have caused a 15% hike in food prices. Food prices have raised by 40%-50% in the last year or two. Where did that other 35% jump come from? One report claims that the drought in Australia caused the price of food to jump by 25%. That’s ten percent left over for increased demand and (at the time) high gas prices.
Big Food or Biofuel?
Obviously, biofuels have to be responsibly produced with the food shortage in mind and in such a way that they don‘t end up creating more carbon emissions. Ethanol isn't a miracle fuel, but it is better for the environment than gasoline.
Big Food seems to be making a stink over the 15% (max) increase in food prices that biofuels have caused, but other factors seem to have a more significant effect on the prices.
More on Ethanol
Ethanol : How the Fuel is Produced, Growing Corn and Other
Ethanol Death Watch As Corn Prices Rocket
Ethanol Mandates: The Single Most Misguided Agricultural Program
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Green Glossary: Meltwater
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- 5 Reuses for: Watermelon
- Meet Green Business Consultant Tyler Moorehead, of GreenUnlimited
- Raw Food for the Rest of Us
- Zero Waste—The Newest Eco-Fashion Innovation?
More than half of the corn grown in the United States is used to feed livestock.
THANK YOU. I hate that biofuel gets such a bad rap while so many happily eat meat and dairy at every meal.
Very fair article. As is usually the case the truth lies somewhere in the middle between the claims made by both sides. But one thing that I would point out the Grocery Manufacturers Association is not a public service group looking out for the welfare of consumers. They are a trade organization and their efforts will always be geared towards creating higher profits for their members.
And what about using the term "biofuel" in the first place.
This manages to paint biodiesel with the same brush as ethanol. Squeezing a bean to get the oil takes much less energy than distillation.
We should be going all-out to convert waste oil to fuel, first. Biodiesel is here and ready to go.
One more question . . . where was the concern for world-wide food prices when the US consumption of corn for sweeteners went through the roof?
One would think that now the cost of oil has plummeted, so would the market for biofuels, and this argument would be moot. I know that this drop in oil is only temporary, but if it were true that bio-fuel is causing such a large increase in food prices, wouldn't that effect largely disappear in the current market, with demand for oil dropping?
Suppliers were quick to increase their prices when shipping costs skyrocketed, however now that fuel is quite cheap, their prices have barely budged. I have a feeling that bio-fuel did affect food prices, but not to the point that is being claimed, and now it's being used as purely a scapegoat.
Toad
There was an article I read some time back that the Grocery Manufacturers Association was looking at starting a similar campaign against biodiesel as they have waged against ethanol. According to the article they have already funded a study to establish a link between biodiesel production and higher food prices.
Biofuel doesn't need to be sourced from food products nor does the feedstock need to be grown on arable land, just as cattle can be fed on grass as opposed to corn. I oppose altering the environment drastically in order to grow biofuel, but a place can be made for it in the spectrum.
This article is a poor reflection on the editorial standards of Tree Hugger. And Josh Peterson is either listening too much to his friends in Iowa, or he is a sloppy researcher. This is NOT a balanced story.
First, although the agro-fuels lobby likes to characterize critics of biofuel policy as "ant-ethanol" or "anti-biodiesel", that unfairly characterizes the critics. Most are agnostic about ethanol and biodiesel, but are critical of the policies that support their production -- which include a myriad of subsidies, tax credits, border protection and, above all, regulations mandating their use.
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/biofuel-subsidies-united-states-2007-update
Second, the agro-fuels lobby likes to portray this opposition as being led by a bunch of greedy Big Food Companies (aided and abetted by Big Oil), as if they are themselves a bunch of Ma and Pa companies instead of led by some of the biggest agricultural conglomerates in the world (e.g., ADM) ... not to mention one of the most politically connected and powerful lobbies in the world.
A look at the membership of the "Food Before Fuels" group will quickly demonstrate that there are also a number of environmental, livestock producers' and taxpayers' groups that are members:
http://www.foodbeforefuel.org/members
Josh Peterson should have verified the numbers himself. The USDA predicts that 33% of this year's corn crop will go into making ethnol this year. That is more than 40% of domestic consumption of corn. Yes, the protein is retained in the distillers grains, but that is only 30-33% of the original corn, and most of the consumers of DDGs are concentrated cattle feedlots. Poultry producers (some of which have closed shop because of high feedgrain prices) and hog producers cannot use large amounts of DDGS because the animals will not tolerate it.
Ask yourself this: if the distillers' grains were such a deal, why would the livestock producers be opposing ethanol subsidies?
Josh's article is highly selective with the facts, and gets them only half right. A January 2006 study by UoC Berkeley scientists did not find "that ethanol is 10-15% better for the environment than regular gasoline." What it found was that, on a life-cycle basis, its GHG emissions were 10-15% lower. But that was three years ago. Subsequent research (accepted and endorsed by the same scientists), has shown that if one take account of the indirect displacement effects of diverting biofuels to fuel, the life-cycle emissions of biofuels are considerably higher than of the petroleum fuels they displace, not to mention encouraging destruction of wildife habitats.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861
Josh refers to the USDA and just one UN report on the effect of biofuels on food prices. He should have read up on that topic, as well. The USDA looks at changes in final expenditure by households on food, which includes a 45% weighting for money spent on meals eaten outside the home. So, naturally, changes in that index are rather insensitive to changes in the prices of basic commodities. But the budget of poor people in places like Haiti and Africa, who eat lower down the food chain (i.e., things like corn meal) ARE sensitive to movements in commodity prices. What Josh might have mentioned in this connection was the trenchant study by Donald Mitchell of the World Bank, which showed that biofuels were the LARGEST factor driving up the prices of food commodities (grain prices, not the price of a box of Corn Flakes, which is not what poor people buy) from January 2002 through April 2008:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1233058
Unless Josh Peterson can refute the Mitchell's analysis, he should stop making irresponsible statements like "but other factors [than biofuels] seem to have a more significant effect on the prices."
the benefits will out weigh the downfalls tremendously.
for the most part, we tend to resist change until we ourselves personally reap the rewards.
first of all, grocerys only got out of control when the price of oil went through the roof.
you have to realize, that the fuel not only gets the grocerys to the store, but is used in farm equipment to plant, and harvest the crops.
Taxes are sky high, fuel is sky high, the price for corn this year is terribly low,so the farmers are taking a loss on their crops, and the weather has been destroyed too many acres of farmland that grow corn.
corn is is short supply with or without bio-fuels.
Bio-fuels on the another note, take fuels to create them also. but once the initial product is put into production, it is a renewable source.
The intention is to wean ourselves from the dependence on foreign oil.
In case you haven't heard, the oil wells are getting low.
It takes many lifetimes to make new fossil fuel
it takes 30 or more years to grow a tree to warm your home.
it takes 1 season of the year to grow the crops needed to move your vehicles, warm your home, and operate the equipment needed to make it all possible. as well as the fuel needed to do it again next season.
It takes American workers to put this all into motion.
American workers to keep it in motion, and on...
Bio-fuel research has been going on for many many years.
we have millions of acres of untilled land not being used for producing food. but rather sitting idle, going to brush, becoming unusable for anything.
Bio-fuel producers are utilizing the untilled land that food producers did not want, or need.
bio-fuels are not eating up our food supply.
that would be STUPID.
and honestly? some of the crops used in making and experimenting for bio-fuels, aren't edible.
we are planting additional crops for bio-fuels.
Bio-fuels can not be eliminated because the cost of oil has dropped. then oil will go up again.
and no, the cost of food will not go down with the cost of oil. it cost the farmers the high priced oil to make it, and the transporters the higher fuels prices to get it there. the plants the higher priced fuels to run the machines to process it, heat the water that cleans it, etc...
In an effort to get your food bill down, buy local. try to stay away from those imported edibles. they cost to get them here, and the quality of fresh produce is typically less, and the sanitary practices producing them is questionable. Many of the countries we import food from, has few and no regulations as we do in this country.
bio-fuels uses land that was wasted, and left untilled, because we had an over abundance of food, so much so that we sold it to other countries. yes, our food is in high demand because of our high quality standards.
Once a nation of independence, we've slowly become otherwise. We've gotten spoiled by conveniences.
We've gotten lazy. We now look to others to take care of us, and when they can't or cost us too much money, we blame someone else?
bio-fuels are not taking food out of our mouths. bio-fuels are not taking acreage from farms that grow cattle feed, or produce for our markets.
feeding our cattle comes first, as this is our livelihood.
Bio-fuels is a side line. simply diversifying a livelihood to keep with the times. a stride to the future.
the livestock on this farm are not without sufficient corn or hay.
So while we sit. complain, and point the finger at someone,or thing being the reason for our problems, maybe we need to consider all points of view.
the outsiders, being mostly uniformed
the complainers, being the whining lazy ones
the lazy ones, do nothing but pointing fingers
the farmers, making it happen to pamper you all, in hopes of a better life. a better land.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER
"Bio-fuels uses land that was wasted." That is pure balderdash. Corn and soybeans (in the United States) and oilseed rape (in Europe) is being produced on prime farmland. Moreover, as the amount of land planted to corn has increased, production of wheat and oats has declined. See the graphs at this ERS analysis:
www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Baseline/crops.htm
Sometimes you have to really look at the assumptions made in science papers and not just read the bullet points. The paper that suggests that corn ethanol would cause deforestation, was one to closely read.
Check out this rebuttal article
http://www.hrccc.org/images/ANL_-_Wang_response_to_land_use.pdf
Tha main point is assuming that the US will produce 30 billion gallons of ethanol, when we produce 8 right now and there is a cap of 15 by the government. Also assuming that yield per acre will remain at 2006 levels, when it has steadily been increasing.
This is almost as bad as the two Pimental papers, which are referenced by anti-ethanol advocates. How an entomologist, working out of Qutar, with ties to Shell Oil, became the leading voice on why ethanol is bad truly escapes me.
At last count, research papers concerning corn ethanol, over a hundred supported the economics, energy balance, enviromental impact and three did not. Guess which three? Try searching for anti-corn ethanol research, and you only get those same 3 studies.
It is amazing to me that if you repeat the same distortion over and over again, it is eventually taken for fact.
Response to Malcolm Johal
Timothy Searchinger, the lead author of the article in Science (February 2008) which suggests that corn ethanol would cause deforestation, has answered his critics, point by point:
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/319/5867/1238
I guess you missed it.
One can of course improve on the modelling and the assumptions. But most independent scientists (i.e., those who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the studies), and an increasing number of policy makers, acknowledge and recognize the basic premise of the Searchinger et al. article. If an additional demand is created for crops -- be they corn or switchgrass -- grown on arable land, and this increase in demand is not offset by increasing yeields, there are two things that can happen: less food (or animal feed) will be produced, or new land will be put to the plow.
I have no idea how you arrive at your estimate that, of the sum of research papers concerning corn ethanol, over a hundred support its economics, energy balance, and enviromental impact and three do not. I know of plenty of serious, well-researched articles that question the economics or claimed net environmental benefits of corn ethanol. More are being published each month. Here are three (not by by Patzek and Pimentel) to start you off:
www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c
www.oecd.org/document/28/0,3343,fr_2649_33717_41013916_1_1_1_1,00.html
www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/biofuel-subsidies-selected-oecd-countries
food
According to the White House, ethanol production has quadrupled from 1.6 billion gallons in 2000 to 6.4 billion gallons in 2007. The increased production of ethanol comes primarily from corn, and it has made the United States the number one producer of the alternative fuel worldwide.
But this shift from producing corn and soybeans for fuel rather than food has affected global food supplies.Biofuel production from nongrain biomass such as sugarcane, Cox said, “would be less destructive than grain biofuels.”