Anyone who has been to a grocery store recently knows that food prices are up.
Some politicians and members of the media have been quick to place a major part of the blame on the growth of the biofuels industries and most particularly the booming production of ethanol in the United States.
The anti-ethanol rhetoric has been amazingly ignorant. Sen. Charles Grassley, having heard more nonsense about ethanol than the plain-talking Iowa Republican could stomach, took to the floor of the U.S. Senate May 15 to set the record straight.
‘‘None of these criticisms are based on sound science, sound economics, or for that matter common sense,’’ Grassley told his Senate colleagues.
With that, Iowa’s senior senator set about correcting misconceptions.
Ethanol’s critics claim is it takes more energy to produce a unit of ethanol than the energy the finished product provides.
Grassley said that contention is simply not backed up by current scientific knowledge.
‘‘A 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture study concluded that ethanol yields 67 percent more energy than is used to grow and harvest the grain and to process that grain into ethanol,’’ he said. ‘‘These figures take into account the energy required to not just process grain into ethanol, it takes into consideration the energy the farmer takes to plant, to grow, to harvest the corn, as well as the energy required to manufacture and distribute ethanol.’’
The senator pointed to 15 peer-reviewed scientific studies, 12 of which have found that ethanol has a positive net energy balance. He said the three that did not were by the same individual and used older data than the other studies.
Production innovations are improving an already good energy yield.
‘‘The net energy balance of ethanol production continues to improve because ethanol production is becoming more efficient,’’ Grassley said.
He noted that in the 1980s it took a bushel of corn to produce 2.3 gallons of ethanol, but today the same amount of corn can yield 2.8 gallons with 3 gallons per bushel an achievable target in the near future.
At a time when oil prices are high and American dependence on foreign oil is on the rise, the positive contribution ethanol can make in helping meet the nation’s energy needs must not be undermined by loose talk. The American corn diverted to ethanol production has very little impact on the increase in food prices here or abroad.
Higher food prices are the result of many factors, but the high price of oil is villain No. 1.
‘‘We had a recent Texas A&M study concluding that the biggest driving force behind the higher food costs is higher energy costs,’’ Grassley said. He added that the same study and research at the Iowa State University Center for Agriculture and Rural Development supports the proposition that without ethanol production Americans could be paying 30 or 40 cents more per gallon for gasoline.
Far from driving up food costs, ethanol and other biofuels are helping keep the costs of producing and distributing food lower than would be the case in an ethanol-free world.
Grassley isn’t alone in arguing that ethanol’s critics are misinformed. The U.S. Department of Agriculture weighed in on the issue at an extensive media briefing Tuesday.
‘‘Higher oil prices affect much more than the cost of driving,’’ Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer told media representatives. ‘‘They are actually one of the major factors behind higher food costs.’’
Higher corn prices attributable to the ethanol boom play a small part in the cost of food. They are not, however, the prime villain.
‘‘If you look at the consumer dollar for food purchases ... a small portion of it, about a fifth is attributed to the farm value of underlying commodities,’’ Joe Glauber, USDA chief economist said Tuesday. ‘‘Much of it ... is labor costs, advertising, energy costs and other factors.’’
It’s time for ethanol’s critics to face facts. Exorbitant oil prices, not more expensive corn deserves most of the blame for the higher cost of food.
