Food vs Biofuel

A Look at the Details 

At the same time that international humanitarian organizations and government agencies are conceptualizing, strategizing, and publishing strategies to improve food security and combat world hunger (5, 6), the biofuels industry has been booming, with more governments offering incentives for production, investors willing to put up the cash to build more distilleries, and, correspondingly, more crops diverted to use in fuel production.

The 2004 surge in oil prices to $40/barrel (4), which by 2006 was at $60 to $100/barrel (7), is largely responsible for everyone’s interest. With the US Energy Information Administration’s estimates of a 71% increase in global energy consumption between 2003 and 2030 (3), it is no surprise that an alternative would generate activity and draw capital.

Impact of Crop Diversion 

Proponents of biofuels argue that the percentage of grain crops harvested for fuel production is negligible compared with yields. Jeffrey Zeiger, executive director of the nonprofit organization Alternative Fuels Institute, for example, argues, “Based on the numbers and the amount of ethanol we’re producing, there’s not a negative implication for corn destined for the rest of the world” (11). However, such a conclusion does not account for the extent that hungry families could be helped if the land was used for crops that were destined for human consumption. For example, though the 32 million tons of corn converted to fuel in 2004 only amounted to 12% of the total US supply, 32 million tons of corn could feed 100 million people when calculating at average worldwide consumption levels (4). Furthermore, if the grain needed to fill a 25-gallon sport utility vehicle tank (that is, 450 lb) were instead used for food, that grain would provide one person enough calories for a year (3, 4); likewise, the grain needed for biweekly fill-ups could feed 26 (10). Considering that, according to United Nations (UN) Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, 854 million people worldwide suffer from hunger (12), concerns regarding how much arable land is diverted to crops for fuel are increasing.

Though much of the impact of crop diversion to biofuels on world hunger remains to be seen, Mexico has already felt the effects of rising US corn prices. In 2006, after the price of US corn, which contributes to 80% of Mexico’s corn imports, had jumped $1.40 in only three-plus months, the price of tortillas per kilogram suddenly doubled as speculation and hording became rampant (3, 9). Though white corn is used in tortilla production, the market price was driven up when Mexican companies that used yellow corn—mostly processed foods and animal feed manufacturers—started buying up inventory of the white, homegrown, cheaper variety (3). Mexico’s president was forced to intervene and set limits on corn prices (9).

What happened in Mexico has potential to happen throughout the world, as the United States exports up to 70% of the world’s corn (8). The negative effects of crop diversion to biofuels—the imposition on the world food supply that begins with the grain availability and prices and ultimately affects the secondary production markets that use the grains—is expected to be felt most strongly in poorer nations with higher percentages of poverty. In Mexico, where 107 million live in poverty, out-of-control price increases on foods that provide the bulk of calories could be devastating (3, 9).

The expected increases in cassava prices by 2010 and 2020 are a major cause for concern because it is a principal food item in poverty-stricken communities in Latin America and Asia (9) and is the primary staple for more than 200 million poor people living in sub-Saharan Africa (1). A high-starch tuber, cassava is the chief option for people in tropical nations who can’t afford other foods (3).

World Bank economists have published several studies suggesting that the world population living in poverty experiences a decline in energy consumption by approximately one-half of a percentage point when all major food staples are experiencing a price increase of even 1% (3). As the poorest among the world population spend approximately 50% to 80% of their household income on food (3), any price increase can negatively affect food security. Yet, others have argued that as food scarcity is primarily the result of poverty, food security is not helped by lowering prices (13), as it can slow the economy within poorer rural communities (5).

The Biofuels Debate 

Many individuals and groups are calling for a global rethinking of how best to proceed with biofuel production in light of its potential impact on the world’s food supply and, in turn, hunger. It is noteworthy, however, that there is disagreement even among the ranks within given sectors.

Agribusiness companies, for example, are likely expected to be entirely in favor of crop use in biofuel production, as they stand to profit greatly from it. But in May, Warren Staley, former chief executive officer and chairman of Cargill Inc, publicly questioned that subsidies are given for fuel production instead of food production (14). “We have to look at the hierarchy of value for agricultural land use,” Staley said. “Food first, then feed, and last fuel. Today we are providing subsidy to fuel uses while often erecting barriers to new food and feed technologies” (14).

The former chairman of Archer Daniels Midland, G. Allen Andreas, was nonplussed by Staley’s comments: “I think any knowledgeable person in today’s world would recognize the fact that the reason we’ve got malnutrition and hunger is not because we’re turning food into fuel…We’ve got hundreds of millions of acres of land in Brazil that are suitable for arable development into farmland that still have not been cultivated without any infringement on the environment. There’s plenty of capacity to make food” (14).

But Cargill has remained firm in its argument; as the US government was reviewing its goals for renewable fuel in August, Cargill chief financial officer Bill Veazey stated to the press, “There needs to be escape mechanisms [regarding mandates about biofuel production] so that you don’t distort the food markets” by way of soaring demand for crops (15).

There is also variation in opinion at the UN. Whereas Jean Ziegler has argued that “There is a great danger for the right to food by the development of biofuels,” and “[The price] will be paid perhaps by hundreds of thousands of people who will die from hunger” (5), a senior official at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Gustavo Best, believes that biofuels can have a positive impact by boosting food production in poorer nations (12).

There are many, however, who believe that fuel and food crops can coexist without one being sacrificed or favored over the other. However, success of this equilibrium depends on international policy. (A policy that proposes a target ethanol production goal while providing for affordable and abundant food, H.Con.Res.25, has already been proposed in the United States by the Chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN] [16].)

In a report by Joachim von Braun, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute, and R. K. Pachauri, director general of the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, India, the authors present the argument that increased food insecurity is not a foregone conclusion of energy crop production (7). They maintain that effective use of arable land, such as rotating crops, reserving favorable lands for food crops, and increasing biofuel production in rural and developing countries are worthwhile means for achieving a sustainable balance.

Jacques Diouf, FAO director general, argues that international policies that address barriers to ethanol imports, establishment of environmental bioenergy standards, and microcredits for farmers in developing countries must be crafted and implemented. “Such measures would allow developing countries—which generally have ecosystems and climates more suited to biomass production than industrialised nations and often have ample reserves of land and labour—to use their competitive advantage,” Diouf has told the press, adding that there is “huge potential to reduce hunger and poverty” by moving ethanol crop production to the poorer nations (2).

Finding Resolution 

Though there is great concern about the ultimate impact of biofuel production on hunger among the world’s poorest, the major increase in biofuels does have the potential to benefit the world’s population living in poverty: on an individual level, many of the world’s poor are peasant and subsistence farmers who could profit from the growing industry; on a national level, purchasing biofuel from local farmers abates the dependence on imported oil (approximately 81% of the world’s poorest nations are net importers of oil) (13). Although it is not possible for US biofuel production to benefit most international players—most ethanol imports entering the United States must pay a tariff of 54 cents per gallon (ethanol prices are cheaper in other countries, including Brazil) (3)—farmers on arable land in developing nations could ultimately enrich their income if they were to enter the market as suppliers as the industry expanded in their countries. However, the likelihood of this result is questionable, as “the history of industrial demand for agricultural crops in these countries suggests that large producers will be the main beneficiaries. The likely result of a boom in cassava-based ethanol production is that an increasing number of poor people will struggle even more to feed themselves” (3).

Furthermore, subsistence farmers are particularly vulnerable to market forces, as they are “highly dependent on markets, but engage in disadvantageous monetized exchanges through selling food when it is most plentiful and cheapest, and buying when it is scarce and expensive” (5).

However, according to Christopher Flavin, director of the Worldwatch Institute, “Today’s higher prices may allow [farmers in some of the poorest nations] to sell their crops at a decent price, but major agricultural reforms will be needed to ensure that the increased benefits go to the world’s 800 million undernourished people, most of whom live in rural areas” (13).

The Voice of Dietetics 

As the biofuels debate persists, there has been a noticeable deficiency of vocal food and nutrition professionals quoted in the published reports. Where is the voice of dietetics when it comes to biofuels?

According to Helen Costello, MS, RD, LD—community food consultant at Nutrition Crossroads, in Concord, NH, and past-chair of the Hunger and Environmental Nutrition dietetic practice group (HEN DPG)—the media’s view of the profession plays a role in this. “The media tend to place people in their respective silos,” she says, “and RDs have been assigned to the nutrition silo.” Though there are many RDs whose work focuses on policy and other food system components beyond nutrition, she adds, generally the media do not find them.

But Mary Jo Forbord, RD, executive director of the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota and current chair of HEN, says RDs to some extent have distanced themselves from this aspect within the study and practice of food and nutrition. When she entered dietetics in the 1970s, she says, medical-clinical dietetics was treating disease and optimizing human nutrition through nutrients and technology, with less attention placed on the environmental, social, and cultural implications of food choices. However, an increasing number of RDs are becoming interested in these aspects of food. “We have been complicit in leaving ourselves out of the discussion,” she says, adding that “To be sought after [for inclusion in the biofuels discussion], we must understand how our food, agriculture, and energy systems operate; thoughtfully determine how we would like them to evolve; and work together as a profession for positive change.”

However, neither Forbord nor Costello believes that this current structure is necessarily permanent, so long as there is increased activity on an individual and organizational level.

Though she had to change how she practiced to adjust to the current forces influencing health care and dietetics, Forbord believes the current generation of RDs are taking a broader view of the environmental, social, and political aspects of the profession, adding that HEN has one of the highest growth rates among DPGs and that approximately 20% of members are students. She also mentions that the types of courses being offered have changed to educate students of dietetics about the dynamic forces that will reshape the food system of the future.

This approach of education plus positioning is essential if RDs are going to be called upon more frequently for public enviro-political debate. Forbord says: “Nobody will call us unless we let them know what we can offer to these interrelated mega-topics.”

Costello believes that the American Dietetic Association (ADA) also has a guidance role in bringing RDs to the fore of the debate. “Two things need to happen from our professional organization in order to change this,” she argues. “The ADA leadership needs to assign value to the RDs who work in this area and promote their expertise. And the ADA media spokespersons need to be trained by other RDs who are knowledgeable about these topics, and they need to let media outlets know that RDs have a perspective on this topic.” Costello cites an example of how DPGs provide expertise to the organization: In 2006, HEN responded to a request from ADA’s Legislative and Public Policy Committee for comment on a white paper regarding reauthorization of the Farm Bill, and that such inclusion of DPGs is good for the group, as it makes use of its members’ expertise, and, in turn, the organization as a whole.

Because feed corn for ethanol fuel production is not as efficient as other crops, other regions of the country are looking for ways to use biomass for fuel in its most efficient forms. With New Hampshire the second most forested state in the country, interest in developing cellulosic biofuels has grown, and some communities are now using recycled vegetable oils to fuel municipal vehicles and greenhouses. Costello serves on the advisory council of the New Hampshire Center for a Food Secure Future, which follows the development of any cropland conversion for the production of substrate for biofuels. Forbord and her husband, both fifth-generation farmers, have been shareholders in a farmer-owned cooperative of ethanol plants in Minnesota since its initial planning phase in 1993. Her farm has supplied wheat, rye, and corn for processing into food-grade, industrial-grade, fuel-grade, and certified organic ethanol. She also direct-markets beef raised exclusively on certified organic pastures. These days, she is determined to find a way to be able to afford to not grow corn, despite a price, demand, and subsidy picture that looks quite favorable in the short term.

“We need to diversify our cropping systems and our sources of domestic renewable energy, and we need to get serious about conservation,” Forbord says, adding that producing only one crop not only has nutritional limitations for the food system, but is not good risk management and can lead to environmental problems—especially if lands not well suited to corn production are converted in an attempt to capitalize on corn’s current economic bubble.

“We are anxious for cellulosic fuels to come online,” she adds. “Several pieces need to come into place yet, but we are poised to fully transition from row crops to mixtures of perennial prairie grasses. We are optimizing solar energy use and minimizing fossil fuel use on our farm. It’s all about energy use, whether in our food or in our fuel, and I hope there can be more focus on improving the sustainability of both.”

Costello states that there is nothing to show that the biofuel production policy is good for the long term: “The politicians really haven’t analyzed the repercussions. The laws of diminishing returns and basic economics will eventually show us it is a mistake to rush into large-scale technology that is inefficient and unsustainable.”

Forbord adds that the majority of the US corn crop is grown to feed livestock already, and ethanol will soon consume 20% of that crop. She says that with the rapidly growing global public awareness that we are reaching some limitations in our energy availability—fuel and food—and with 6 billion stomachs to feed vs 800 million auto tanks to feed, the policy and status quo of the past 50 years must change. “We all take action to conserve, just by giving more thought to our energy use,” she adds. “Most Americans have a ways to go before conservation becomes a hardship.”

She goes on to say that the discussion must be deepened beyond blaming to find solutions to these pressing issues—something Costello too has noted. “I have tried, without success,” Costello says, “to find a solid analysis taking into account the effects to farmers and rural communities; food balance analyses, both domestic and in developing countries; and the environmental impacts of adding more corn acreage.”

From a health perspective, though the current reports often focus on the generalities of “hunger leading to death,” specific concerns regarding biofuels lie in maintaining biodiversity and avoiding widespread malnutrition.

“We are not advancing on the hunger front as far and as fast as we should be,” Forbord says. “Globally we currently produce enough calories to feed everyone but certainly not in terms of healthful diversity. We are also keenly aware that ‘calories produced’ is not tantamount to a well-fed world for a host of reasons that we all must overcome.” Forbord believes the United States should take the lead in concentrating sustainable agriculture to improve diet diversity and reduce the negative statistics worldwide. “We have the resources, yes,” she says, “But do we have the will to take the appropriate leadership role? If we didn’t have ethanol to debate, would we be doing more for world hunger?”

Regarding the general terminology currently used to describe health concerns, Forbord says, “By looking beyond the terms ‘hunger’ and ‘death,’ and instead of responding solely to emergency situations, we can search for the root causes and resolve to use our resources effectively and with sustainability. At the very least, [the use of these terms] has brought forth greater awareness of the challenges.”

Included in these challenges is that the rising food prices from increased energy costs and high prices for feed corn (resulting from acreage diversion to ethanol corn) will have a substantial impact on low-income families. “Food prices have increased 4% since January,” notes Costello. “This level of increase can equate to two weeks of groceries for a family who lives below the poverty threshold.” She further observes that in 2006 there was increased demand for emergency food resources in the United States (such as food banks and pantries and soup kitchens), and the exigency is expected to increase even more as food costs for dairy and meat have risen dramatically and has caused lower-income families to struggle. “High-quality protein foods are often hardest to secure from emergency sources,” she says. “If this trend continues and the federal nutrition assistance programs are not funded to meet the price increases, I would expect to see certain types of malnutrition that we haven’t seen in this country in a long time.”

In addition to advocating membership in HEN, Costello and Forbord recommend that food and nutrition professionals who want to get involved in this component of the food system become active at an academic and a local level. The DPG has published articles (including citations) on the topic in its newsletter and often posts links to articles in the members-only section of the group’s Web site (www.hendpg.org). They also suggest researching the issue in the media (this is currently a hot topic across most major media outlets) and participating in professional development activities such as agriculture courses, job-shadowing, and becoming involved in food banks, rural farms, and local food production within the community.

“To watch what’s playing out within the global debate can be intimidating and make us believe it’s in someone else’s hands,” says Forbord. “But RDs can make a contribution at the community level by getting involved in understanding food from soil to table and community food security as well as influencing policy. Most important is to recognize that there is a huge role for RDs to play if we step up, make connections, and tackle the ambiguities in these discussions.”