The Myth of Food Versus Fuel

Among all the myths about bioethanol, the most common and pervasive is that of “food-versus-fuel.”

Food-versus-fuel asserts that when crops or cropland are used to produce biofuel, it decreases the world’s ability to grow food. In theory, it seems plausible. We eat crops. If we use crops for other things, we have less to eat. 

However, the real world says otherwise. It turns out that agriculture and international markets are more complicated than 1-1=0. While bioethanol production has steadily increased in the last two decades, food prices have not tracked with that growth in production. 

Poor timing

Between 2006 and 2008, the world saw a dramatic spike in commodity prices, including a 136% increase in corn prices and a 107% increase in soybean prices.

Some pointed to the United States and its then-recently enacted bioethanol policy – the Renewable Fuel Standard – as the cause of this spike. An industry that was rapidly growing to usher in a new age of renewable energy was now saddled with accusations of creating food scarcity. 

But even in the midst of the crisis, it was clear that bioethanol was not driving the price increases. 

Douglas Faulkner is today President and Founder of the clean-technology advisory firm Leatherstocking, LLC. During the commodity price spike of the late 2000s, he was Acting Undersecretary for Rural Development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“I vividly remember being with the Secretary of Agriculture in his office, and we hosted representatives of all the key meat groups. They all were blaming biofuels for the high prices of the grain they were feeding their animals,” he said. 

But, USDA data told a different story. 

“Grain prices track very closely over time with oil prices, and oil prices were going up then,” Faulkner said. “And sure enough, as soon as oil prices started coming back down again, so did grain prices.  USDA experts had nailed it to the wall.  Yes, ethanol played a minor role in the food price run-up, but it was far from being the main or worst culprit.  There was no real food-versus-fuel issue.”

Despite these facts, the myth of food-versus-fuel stuck, and unfortunately remains in the minds of many.

The real story

Food insecurity is a problem in parts of the world today. That problem is created by a number of factors, none of which have anything to do with bioethanol.

Gerard Ostheimer is a molecular biologist and former science advisor at USDA. He is also Founder & CEO of Biofuture Workshop. The world, he said, is “very long on carbohydrates,” evident in the price of corn and sugar in recent years. Global grain production and stocks are at record highs.

“The World Food Program lists seven causes of food insecurity and they're all local,” Ostheimer said. “At no point does the World Food Program say, ‘We don't have enough food.’ They never say that. What they say is that it's about unequal distribution and it's about local conditions. And usually it's associated with a lack of government or a lack of peace. It’s due to political instability, war, et cetera.”

In fact, bioethanol production can have a positive impact on a nation’s agricultural capabilities. Bioethanol creates a new market for grain. By improving grain prices, it spurs greater investment and advances in technology in agriculture, which leads to better production. This also improves incomes in rural areas.  

Additionally, when bioethanol is produced from a feedstock like corn, only the starch portion of the grain is used, and the remaining 30% of fiber, fat, and protein are utilized to boost nutrition in other areas of the food chain through animal feed products like dried distillers grains (DDGS) and wet cake.

Ostheimer points to Brazil as evidence of the positive impact bioethanol has in strengthening economies. Brazil was the first to promote bioethanol as a significant portion of their transportation fuel mix.

“That started in the seventies. Before that Brazil was food insecure. Brazil was a net food importer,” he said. “And now the U.S. and Brazil are number one and two [exporters] in soybeans and corn.”

The challenge today

Unfortunately, the facts don’t always break through the noise, and the food-versus-fuel myth persists.

“I don't think the food-versus-fuel fight has ever really gone away,” Faulkner said. “It was politically driven, ideologically driven. ”

“Food-versus-fuel is an emotional way to stir up the complexity of the interrelationships of land use, land tenure, crop production, crop use,” Ostheimer said.

This causes real problems for efforts to grow the use of bioethanol for clean cooking in Africa.

“Food-versus-fuel is definitely an impediment to the African bioeconomy,” Ostheimer said. “It prevents people from even considering investing in or developing the African bioeconomy. African policymakers get mixed messages on the topic of food-versus-fuel and so they opt to not pursue domestic biofuels.”

The fight continues to represent the true story of bioethanol. Meanwhile, proponents can take heart in the fact that the data reinforces the enormous potential of bioethanol for solving problems in cooking, transportation, agriculture, and rural economies. 

“If you give farmers a market, they will respond in incredible ways that are frequently difficult to predict,” Ostheimer said. “And I don't think anybody would have predicted that a sugar cane ethanol program would drive investment in ag infrastructure and ag education that would allow Brazil to be the agricultural powerhouse that it is today.”