For several weeks, NewsBusters has been reporting the changing media tide concerning ethanol.
On Thursday, PBS's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" joined the growing chorus of press outlets pointing fingers at biofuels as being partially responsible for the growing international food crisis:
The cost of food has soared as more and more corn is being produced for fuel, not food...[I]t is the government's mandate for ethanol that has doubled the demand for corn and sent prices soaring.
Sadly, the segment ignored Nobel Laureate Al Gore's involvement in this matter, as well as his biofuel investments, but still went where few mainstream media outlets would have gone just two months ago (video available here):
ELIZABETH BRACKETT, NewsHour correspondent: Illinois farmer Steve Ruh has been anxiously awaiting warmer, drier weather so he can get his corn planted and take advantage of the highest corn prices in years.
STEVE RUH, Ruh Farms: We always have Mother Nature to deal with. And that, of course, is the trump card over all. But when you can market your crops in a manner that we can today, it certainly gives you a positive feeling going into the growing season.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Those high prices are due in part to the increasing demand for ethanol, says Ruh. Last year, 23 percent of U.S. corn went into ethanol production, and next year almost 30 percent of the crop will go into biofuel.
Ruh farms 2,000 acres and used to plant about half-corn and half-soybeans, along with some wheat and alfalfa. Now, corn prices are so good, Ruh will put 70 percent of his land into corn.
STEVE RUH: Corn prices have gone up certainly because of the demand for ethanol and America's passion for green fuel and going green. That has certainly helped. The weak dollar certainly helps. So we have record exports right now. And that along with ethanol has really driven the price high.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: But in a world where corn-growers can be seen as the winners, others are not doing so well.
The biggest losers in the push for more ethanol have been livestock producers, particularly hog farmers. Every time the price of corn goes up by a dollar a bushel, it costs $10 more to get a hog to market.
Those high costs have John Kellogg wondering if he will be able to keep the hog farm that his great-great-grandfather began in northeastern Illinois in 1846.
Kellogg's breeding sows produce 32,000 pigs per year. Unlike cows and chickens, a pig's diet is almost solely corn-based. When the price of corn doubled last year, Kellogg began losing $32 a pig.
He puts much of the blame squarely on the demand for ethanol.
JOHN KELLOGG, Kellogg Farms: I think the increased demand for corn due to ethanol has significantly impacted the cost of corn for me. We moved a hog operation, the finishing portion of it, to Iowa several years ago because corn was cheaper in Iowa than it was in Illinois.
It just happened there's an ethanol plant about 10 miles down the road from our hog operations. And all of a sudden, corn is not cheaper in Iowa. So it's had a direct impact on us.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: More ethanol plants are coming online every day in the push to meet federally mandated renewable fuel standards of 15 billion gallons of ethanol capacity by 2015. It is that steady demand that has helped moved the market up.
Economist Dave Lehman directs commodities research at the Chicago Mercantile Group.
DAVE LEHMAN, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group: It is a new demand factor in the corn market. That's without question. It's doubled, in terms of its percentage of our corn use in the last two years.
However, corn production is increasing very rapidly, as well. We're using biotechnology, adapting that to increase yields. Acreage of corn increased the past year.
Our corn production in the U.S. last year was over 13 billion bushels, and that was up from about 11 billion the year before, so a significant increase in production.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: But the increased production has not made a dent in the price hog-growers are paying for corn, and Kellogg says many are ready to give up.
JOHN KELLOGG: What I see happening in this state is many producers that have a certain age, that are at the point, they say, you know, why struggle with this anymore? So they just quit.
Other people I think are struggling to find a banker that will stick with them until we see the increase in price of pork relative to the input cost. So it's a very sensitive time in the pork industry.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Livestock producers are not the only ones complaining. Rising corn prices have been linked to higher food prices around the globe.
The cost of food has soared as more and more corn is being produced for fuel, not food. U.S. Department of Labor numbers show that the staples are up dramatically: eggs, almost 30 percent; milk, just over 13 percent.
GRIFFIN CAHILL: The food prices have escalated so much and noticing it every week in our food bill. The price of eggs, remember when they were 69 cents, and now they're a $1.79? And orange juice and everything that are the basics that we eat, including apples. I mean, apples, $1.29 a pound! They used to be 39 cents a pound.
LAVITA MITCHELL: They're high, very high, and it's ridiculous. You've got to decide if you're going to buy food, pay rent, or go to the doctor, and that's the honest-to-God truth.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: But is it the growing demand for ethanol that has spiked the cost of food? Vic Lespinasse has traded grains on the Chicago Board of Trade for 25 years. He says ethanol is only part of the problem.
VIC LESPINASSE, broker and grain analyst: It's a contributing factor, although I don't think it's nearly as influential as the weather. That is the driving force in determining grain prices, much more so than any other influence.
But still ethanol demand has increased the price of corn, which has increased prices at the grocery stores, but it's a relatively minor influence compared with the weather and other factors, growing living standards, for example, in places like China and India.
People want to eat better. To eat better, that means they want more meat. More meat means more feed for livestock, and that's helped push prices up, also.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Rising petroleum prices are also a big part of the equation, since they affect the cost of transportation, fertilizer and packaging.
But it is the government's mandate for ethanol that has doubled the demand for corn and sent prices soaring. To try and offset those high prices, the Bush administration has touted byproducts of ethanol production as an alternative food source for livestock.
Roger Conway, the director of energy policy for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, also says making ethanol out of something other than corn eventually will help.
ROGER CONWAY, U.S. Department of Agriculture: We don't believe that we should have 100 percent of corn should be devoted to ethanol. That's why the administration is focusing over the longer term at looking at cellulosic material, like ag residues, forestry residues, municipal solid waste, and energy crops, as an opportunity for developing new types of fuels.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: But no large-scale cellulosic ethanol plant is scheduled to come online before 2010. That leaves corn producers a few more years to enjoy their high corn prices, while their neighbors down the road continue to struggle.
This from PBS? Amazing.
On a related note, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) issued a statement Thursday blaming the "ethanol smear campaign" on "Democratic operatives" (emphasis added, h/t Planet Gore):
It seems there is a “group-think” mentality when it comes to scapegoating ethanol for everything from high gas prices, global food shortages, global warming and deforestation.But, as was recently reported, this anti-ethanol campaign is not a coincidence. It turns out that a $300,000, six-month retainer of a beltway public relations firm is behind the smear campaign, hired by the Grocery Manufacturers Association.Click here to view the Grocery Manufacturers Association's Request for Proposal
Click here to view the Glover Park Group's Media Campaign Proposal
They’ve outlined their strategy of using environmental, hunger and food aid groups to demonstrate their contrived “crisis.”I think it’s important for policy-makers and the American people to know who’s behind this effort.According to reports, downtown D.C. lobbyists, the Glover Park Group and Dutko Worldwide, are leading the effort to undermine and denigrate the patriotic achievement of America’s farmers to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while also providing safe and affordable food.The principle leaders behind the Glover Park Group’s 21-page proposal read like a “who’s who” of Democratic operatives.The effort is led by former President Clinton’s press secretary, Joe Lockhart. Another is 8-year veteran of the Clinton-Gore White House, Michael Feldman.Other leaders of this misinformation campaign include Carter Eskew, Mike Donilon, Joel Johnson, and Susan Brophy – all of which proudly display their ties to the Clinton/Gore White House and their credentials of helping to elect Democratic candidates.I think Democrats here in the Senate who claim to support our nation’s drive toward energy independence should be alarmed by this group’s tactics and smear campaign.I fought President Clinton during his 8 years in office at every turn when he tried to undermine our renewable fuels industry. Now I’m fighting his former staff and staff that worked for the Gore and Kerry presidential campaigns.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Great Scott!
May 17, 2008 - 13:03 ET by BufordDo I see a pig being fitted for wings? What is the world coming to?
The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program...........Ronald Reagan
»→ Buford
May 17, 2008 - 13:38 ET by Cool ArrowYou must have missed the highbrow debate between Bert and Ernie on this issue.
Kermit was surprisingly nonpartisan as the moderator.
Guess he was afraid of getting frog-marched over to NewsBusters.
BHO, Oh Wait!!
Crisis
May 17, 2008 - 13:40 ET by jaywlThe twin crises we face of high gas prices and high food prices are rapidly spinning out of control. Just the fact that PBS aired such a story is indicative of how severe this will become. At some point the leaders that insisted on idiotic or dreamy policies will be forced to admit that the survival of our way of life depends on extraction of wealth and reasonable use of our environment. Coal and oil powered this country into the wealthiest ever. If we are to maintain our lifestyle nuclear must be added to the mix, again. We do not need to go back to the days of dirty black snow I saw in my youth, either. The realization that ethanol mandates was a mistake is only the beginning, the people will demand it.
»→ Another bush league blunder
May 17, 2008 - 13:45 ET by Cool ArrowAm I wrong in remembering it was our own President Bush who endorsed this foolishness?
Everyone who voted for it did so knowing the result in advance.
OBAMA, Oh Wait!!
Ethanol originallly pushed to drive up corn prices
May 17, 2008 - 14:01 ET by nkviking75Cool Arrow, I'm an Iowan, and I can tell you that the push for ethanol began back in the '80's. The major reason was "green" of another sort. Farmers wanted another market for their corn to drive up prices. There wasn't much talk of the alleged environmental benefits of ethanol. We were encouraged to buy it for the good of our large agricultural economy.
President Bush certainly helped ethanol along, but this situation has been a long time in the making, and both parties are guilty.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
»→ Yes, viking
May 17, 2008 - 14:07 ET by Cool ArrowAnd it's to Bush's shame that it was a Republican President who finally bent over for corn.
(that doesn't sound right does it?)
If Iowa weren't the first Primary, Ethanol would not have been an issue.
OBAMA, Oh Wait!!
Not that simple
May 17, 2008 - 14:12 ET by nkviking75I'm not crazy about the whole Iowa Caucus nonsense, but it's not that simple. There are some states with a lot of electoral votes, like Illinois and Ohio, which are major corn producers. When it comes to ag issues, farm state representatives are unusually bipartisan. I'm not trying to excuse Bush, but I also can't see putting all the blame on him. And having a Democrat congress is certainly part of the explanation.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
That's all well and good...
May 17, 2008 - 14:07 ET by FoolicanBut it's Bush's fault primarily.
No Rain in Florida
May 17, 2008 - 14:34 ET by iveseenitallNo rain for months here in Florida. It's getting hotter and wild fires are starting everywhere. IT'S BUSH'S FAULT! -primarily.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Fool again:"it's Bush's
May 17, 2008 - 14:40 ET by the strugglerFool again:"it's Bush's fault" What a maroon.
WARNING. SATIRE. WARNING.
May 17, 2008 - 15:10 ET by FoolicanDon't call me a maroon, you Visigoth. Of course it's Bush's fault. As we know, Bush caused Hurricane Katrina (and the subsequent levy collapse), the 9/11 bombings, and global warming. And the Iraq War is pumping all of the oil out of Baghdad into his personal reserves. Oh, and also into Exxon-Mobil's retirement accounts.
He also has a single-digit IQ.
(Rather amazing how he managed to do all of the above things if he's so dumb as the media makes him out to be, eh?!)
This whole thing about
May 17, 2008 - 14:06 ET byThis whole thing about energy Vs. food seems very complex. It is a shame that we can't power our cars and feed poor people at the same time. In a market-driven economy, you would think that both objectives would be both desirable and achievable. I am sure that liberals are at fault for asking for food for poor people without understanding the need for SUVs.
liberals
May 17, 2008 - 14:39 ET by iveseenitallAh, class envy. It's part and parcel of the communist handbook.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Seen it all
May 17, 2008 - 14:54 ET byJesus said, "suffer the little children." You may have seen it all, but what have you learned? What does "class envy" have to do with starving babies? Is it better to drive a big car while children suffer, or get market forces working to help both the wealthy and the poor?
Logic
May 17, 2008 - 15:59 ET by iveseenitallIn logic, that's called a forced option. Blaming the "rich" for starving children is illogical.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The issue of the day here
May 17, 2008 - 16:15 ET byThe issue of the day here at this post is food Vs. fuel. I didn't set up the argument, I just responded to it. I am not about class envy or keeping money from the rich, although Jesus has been clearer on this matter than I choose to be at this time (eye of the needle truth, notwithstanding).
It is arguable that, as Jesus stated, if the rich gave their money to the poor, all persons would be satiated. This is not socialism; God wants us to give freely.
Your thoughts?
Agreement
May 17, 2008 - 16:28 ET by FoolicanBut the issue is between charity (an act of selflessness by the philanthropist) and a mandatory tax (which is truly an act of selfishness by government). It's profit versus profit margin, as Boortz frequently states - people may be rich, but they may not keep every cent of their money for themselves, or they are forced to give it away to pay their "fair share."
In order to stop children from starving to death, the money has to stop going to government. We saw what happened with FEMA and UN's oil-for-food scandal, and Al Gore's carbon credits scam is about to give us another kick in the pants if we're not paying attention.
Fool - A False Dichotomy
May 17, 2008 - 16:37 ET byFool, you have set up a false dichotomy. The Bible does not talk about charity in the sense of partial giving. That is a 20th century concept. The Bible prescribes that the rich should give all of their excess money to the the needy. It is not about governmental tax; it is about social equality. Jesus prescribed it. Do you not believe?
Anderson, ah, where does the Bible say we are to give all of
May 17, 2008 - 16:45 ET by R D HelmAnderson, ah, where does the Bible say we are to give all of our money to the poor?
And as far as social equality goes, that isn't mentioned, either.
I do recall however, seeing this:
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if
any would not work, neither should he eat.
2 Thessalonians 3:10
Contradictions?
May 17, 2008 - 17:13 ET byR D, By your estimation, which part(s) of the Bible should we believe? “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death!” Leviticus 20:9
Anderson,
May 18, 2008 - 11:39 ET by R D HelmI am not suggesting that the Bible does not command us to give, and give generously, but I am having a really hard time seeing anything therein that commands us to turn ourselves into paupers in the process.
Telented people who work hard should be rewarded for their efforts. The Bible is full of stories about those who were.
If everyone is going to wind up economically equal, then where is the motivation to accomplish anything worthwhile?
Religious Communism?
May 17, 2008 - 19:39 ET by PopularTechWhat is the world coming to now? Will religion now dictate the new communism to "balance the scales"? Social equality is called personal responsibility, you get what you work for and deserve.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Food vs. fuel
May 17, 2008 - 16:44 ET by iveseenitallThe issue is not food vs. fuel. That's a forced option. The issue is that this corn "cure" for our nation's energy probelm is possibly worse than the disease. Jumping into anything, like the remedies for so-called global warming, is foolish and maybe even more dangerous in the long run. Jesus , indeed, did say to "suffer the little children". But he did not give specifics on how to do it. I doubt that any nation has done as much for children as America has. To suggest that we would let children starve in order to drive an SUV is ridiculous. "Liberals" use this trick in order to get their own way, or something more sinister, to get rich themselves.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
"But he did not give specifics on how to do it."
May 17, 2008 - 16:56 ET byActually, Jesus did tell us how to help the little children in VERY specific terms. ...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24.
I interpret this as, if you are wealthy and others are suffering, you cannot go to Heaven. Is there any other possible interpretation?
Interpretation
May 17, 2008 - 17:18 ET by iveseenitallInterpretations are not specifics. Jesus did not give specifics. He asked you to interpret his words in just the manner you have done. However, He did not give specifics on how to "suffer the children". To jump to a particular action and condemn those who don't agree with your action is modern "liberalism"/socialism/ communism. Read the Communist Manifesto.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
"liberalism"/socialism/ communism
May 17, 2008 - 17:29 ET byIf you choose to end this discussion by "ism" name calling, so be it. It really doesn't advance your argument one bit.
Off to dinner and Bible study! Have a blessed night.
Sad.
May 17, 2008 - 18:16 ET by iveseenitallStudy hard, Anderson. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I think the pigs are going to take flight
May 17, 2008 - 14:42 ET by DelsaBush went to the king to prove a point.
WE HAVE TO GO GET OUR OWN "NATURAL RESOURCES" !
What a great way to do it. Pretend to ask the king to increase production when really he is trying to make a larger point and slap the Senate , the congress, and the American people silly.
We need to cut the ethanol stuff right out. If GOD had wanted us to run our world on corn or other food sources, HE would have made oil for us to eat/drink.
Bush is willing to take the heat to make a huge point. He has attempted to get the congress to get our drills up and running along with all other methiods and the idiots in congress countinue to screw us.
Another poster had it right when he said, "It's all about a different kind of green."
Just ask Al Gore.
I am proud of Bush who is willing to take the crap hitting the fan all over the MSM.
His point is well taken.
Here is what I said reBush and his trip to see the king
May 17, 2008 - 15:30 ET by DelsaI feel really good. Read this and see how good I really am.
I love this
http://www.breitbart...
I am printing this out for my husband as he thought I was a little crazy when I said it
Delsa
May 17, 2008 - 17:08 ET by iveseenitallYou've hit the nail on the head! Too bad more people don't see things as clearly as you do. This "debate" has gone on since before WWII. Just imagine if we had drilled locally, built refineries, or set up nuclear plants 40 years ago? We would not be in this mess now. Yet we still hear the same unrealistic rhetoric today from our politicians who put the vote and their personal aggrandizement above the safety and future of our nation. God bless President Bush! He has suffered ridicule so unfairly for all these years. The press, the Dims, and the RINOS are truly the ones who need to be held accountable. They, not the President, have brought us to the brink. Fools!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Nuclear will not solve our Oil Supply Problem
May 17, 2008 - 19:29 ET by PopularTechJust a note that while Nuclear will reduce our usage of coal (which we have in abundance) it will do nothing to reduce our consumption of oil. Drilling more and building more refineries will help.
- Only 1.5% of the United States electrical generation comes from oil (EIA)
- The United States has 268 billion tons of coal reserves or about a 240 year supply (National Mining Association)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Media connected Corn-Food-livestock-Ethanol WOW!
May 17, 2008 - 18:31 ET by JayTeeThere would be no high Food prices due to Ethanol Subsidies ...without Congress.
There would be no High Gas prices without Congress and Clinton' ANWR Bill Veto in '96.
Shows us what happens when you Vote Green.
Don't re-Elect ANYONE !!!
Cellulosic Ethanol is a Pipedream right now
May 17, 2008 - 19:31 ET by PopularTechI am so tired of proponents of Ethanol bringing up the Pipedream of Cellulosic Ethanol
Cellulosic Ethanol - The Forest Killers (Peter Huber, Ph.D.)
Wishful Thinking on Cellulosic Ethanol (Cato Institute)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
http://www.post-gaze... $2
May 18, 2008 - 22:45 ET by jpm100http://www.post-gaze...
$25 million from private concerns is a lot to waste on a pipe dream. And trees aren't the best feedstock. Not that we don't harvest a acres and acres for construction, paper, etc and it all seems to grow back.
So, has anybody bothered to
May 18, 2008 - 22:50 ET by jpm100So, has anybody bothered to look at the total production and not just a percentage breakdown yet for food exports and food produced for consumption for the last 6 months vs. the last twelve years?
Has anyone looked at the price breakdown for food at the supermarket in terms of the actual cost of the commodity compared to transportation, processing, and overhead cost?
Ethanol driving up Food Prices? –No way
May 27, 2008 - 11:26 ET by alextillerEverybody in my world, agriculture and farming, is getting raked over the coals because ethanol prices are supposedly driving up food prices. This is only partially true. (Look to global demand for meat increased by developing nations as the real culprit) Making a change like "energy independence" won’t come fast, easy, or cheap; but it will be good for our country in the long run. People also seem hung up on the idea that all biofuels must be corn based ethanol which is not true. These heightened food and fuel prices will encourage the development of new technologies. Balance will come eventually.
I am also always surprised by the groups of “environmentalists” who all get together and chant for a “smaller carbon footprint” and “less drilling” but aren’t willing to make the sacrifice of paying more for their Wheaties or Cheerios when someone actually listens to them. I am even more surprised when these same people, who claim to be looking-out-for, or at least thinking about our future, are so short sighted enough to believe that new efficiency wont develop and new technologies wont emerge.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Alex Tiller
http://blog.alextiller.com