Passage A

Fool vs. Fuel

By Holly Jessen | May 13, 2011

In April, the Grain Farmers of Ontario and Global Renewable Fuels Alliance both attempted to put an end to
the food vs. fuel debate. It has been shown many times that food price spikes were not caused primarily by
biofuels as originally thought, but by a variety of factors, the main one being higher oil prices. Will now be
the time the debate is finally put to rest?

The Grain Farmers of Ontario released a study on the effects of biofuels on crop prices, food prices and world
hunger. Authored by Terry Daynard and KD Communications, the 117-page study identifies four key points.
First, biofuels and bioproducts reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fuel—a definite positive
for the environment. Since 2007, biofuels have had only a marginal effect on Canadian and international food
prices and the small increases have been offset by the fact that biofuels help lower the price of gas for
consumers. Current food and crop price spikes will stimulate agricultural development in developing
countries. Finally, biofuels and other bioproducts provide an opportunity to use excess agricultural
productivity in Canada, as well as address other societal goals.

The world’s hungry number about 900 million and have for 40 years. Most hungry people are in Asia, although
the numbers are declining there and rapidly growing in Africa, and most live in rural areas. “The ‘grain
deficiency’ for the hungry people in the world’s most hungry countries is equivalent to 1.1 percent of annual
world grain production,” the study says. “The problem is lack of local food production in hungry rural areas,
not supply of grain from the developed world.” To feed the hungry, more local grain production is needed,
rather than imports from developed countries, the study added.

The spike in grain prices in 2007-’08 was higher for rice and wheat than corn. Rice is much more important as
direct human food in most developing countries than corn, the grain most commonly used for biofuel
production. World grain supplies did not decline during the price spikes, which were caused mostly by higher
energy prices, hoarding, export bans and panic buying by governments, says the study. In North America, the
corn price increase caused by biofuels affected food prices by less than 1 percent.

In April, GRFA called on the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to focus on oil prices, the real
driver behind rising food costs. “There is very clear evidence that oil prices are continuing to have a
disproportionate affect on the price of our food,” said Bliss Baker, spokesperson.

The organization points to a USDA report released in early 2011 that answers the question, “For what do our
food dollars pay?” (See illustration below.) The report identifies labor costs, packaging and processing, among
other inputs. In addition, the USDA estimates that 33 percent of every dollar spent on food covers energy
costs, adding that unpredictable energy costs are responsible for the recent food price spikes. “The USDA’s
report echoes the GRFA’s position that oil prices are responsible for rising food prices,” Baker says. “The
world needs to take decisive action today and expand our capacity to produce reliable, clean and sustainable
biofuels in order to move away from our reliance on crude oil.” —Holly Jessen
 Passage B

Corn better used as food than biofuel, study finds

by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Corn is grown not only for food, it is also an important renewable energy source. Renewable biofuels can
come with hidden economic and environmental issues, and the question of whether corn is better utilized as
food or as a biofuel has persisted since ethanol came into use. For the first time, researchers at the
University of Illinois have quantified and compared these issues in terms of economics of the entire
production system to determine if the benefits of biofuel corn outweigh the costs.

Civil and environmental engineering professor Praveen Kumar and graduate student Meredith Richardson
published their findings in the journal Earth's Future.

As part of a National Science Foundation project that is studying the environmental impact of agriculture in
the U.S., the Illinois group introduced a comprehensive view of the agricultural system, called critical zone
services, to analyze crops' impacts on the environment in monetary terms.

"The critical zone is the permeable layer of the landscape near the surface that stretches from the top of the
vegetation down to the groundwater," Kumar said. "The human energy and resource input involved in
agriculture production alters the composition of the critical zone, which we are able to convert into a social
cost."

To compare the energy efficiency and environmental impacts of corn production and processing for food and
for biofuel, the researchers inventoried the resources required for corn production and processing, then
determined the economic and environmental impact of using these resources - all defined in terms of energy
available and expended, and normalized to cost in U.S. dollars.

"There are a lot of abstract concepts to contend with when discussing human-induced effects in the critical
zone in agricultural areas," Richardson said. "We want to present it in a way that will show the equivalent
dollar value of the human energy expended in agricultural production and how much we gain when corn is
used as food versus biofuel."

Kumar and Richardson accounted for numerous factors in their analysis, including assessing the energy
required to prepare and maintain the landscape for agricultural production for corn and its conversion to
biofuel. Then, they quantified the environmental benefits and impacts in terms of critical zone services,
representing the effects on the atmosphere, water quality and corn's societal value, both as food and fuel.

In monetary terms, their results show that the net social and economic worth of food corn production in the
U.S. is $1,492 per hectare, versus a $10 per hectare loss for biofuel corn production.

"One of the key factors lies in the soil," Richardson said. The assessment considered both short-term and long-
term effects, such as nutrients and carbon storage in the soil.

"We found that most of the environmental impacts came from soil nutrient fluxes. Soil's role is often
overlooked in this type of assessment, and viewing the landscape as a critical zone forces us to include that,"
Richardson said.

"Using corn as a fuel source seems to be an easy path to renewable energy," said Richard Yuretich, the NSF
program director for Critical Zone Observatories. "However, this research shows that the environmental costs
are much greater, and the benefits fewer, than using corn for food.