GRAPEVINE, Texas – U.S. corn growers are bracing for a second wave of attacks in the wake of a food versus fuel tsunami that left them battered and bruised.
Enemies of corn ethanol have shifted tactics and are now portraying corn as an environmental pariah.
“The focus is changing to greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and sustainability,” said Rick Tolman, chief executive officer of the National Corn Growers Association.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association has teemed up with beef, poultry and pork groups and a host of other organizations to launch a critical website at www.foodbeforefuel.org.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
The site features negative remarks about corn ethanol, including claims that it will double greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years and create an environmental and economic calamity.
“These are pretty nasty comments,” Tolman told delegates attending the corn congress portion of the Commodity Classic conference.
Organizations behind the website signed a letter to the new director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), saying they oppose higher ethanol blends and encourage the agency to focus its energy and attention on cellulose ethanol development.
“This gives you an idea of the battle that we’re going to be facing,” Tolman said.
He told delegates the anti-corn ethanol campaign is co-ordinated by Kraft Foods and major oil industry players that are opposed to ethanol, such as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. These groups are making a number of inaccurate statements about the industry in an attempt to sway politicians and the public, he added.
“I’m disappointed that our good friends in the livestock industry are engaged in these kinds of tactics.”
Ethanol’s opponents talk about corn’s over-reliance on pesticides and fertilizers, but data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows herbicide and insecticide use has been falling and that corn farmers are using 10 percent less fertilizer in pounds per bushel than they were in 1980.
Critics finger the industry as a big user of water, but 87 percent of corn acres are non-irrigated.
And they accuse ethanol of being a net user of energy.
“Have you ever heard anyone ask about the net energy for electricity or natural gas or any of those others?” Tolman asked corn delegates.
USDA data shows corn ethanol is the only form of energy that delivers a positive net energy balance.
However, even that assertion is under attack. Under new renewable fuel standard legislation, the EPA is required by law to conduct a life cycle analysis on ethanol that includes the indirect land use factor.
“If you add this in, it goes from positive to negative. It is really a big threat,” Tolman said.
The industry likely has until 2010 to convince the EPA that it has a minimal indirect land use impact.
One of the arguments it will offer is that farmers are producing twice as much corn per acre of land than they did in 1967.
As well, a peer-reviewed article that ran in the Journal of Plant Physiology predicts corn yields will double again by 2030.
“That’s sustainability,” Tolman said.
He lamented that the mainstream media hangs on every word proffered by ethanol’s detractors while ignoring reports such as a study published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology showing ethanol delivers up to a 2.23-to-one net energy ratio and reduces greenhouse gases by 48 to 59 percent compared to gasoline.
Tolman said the corn industry’s opponents have more money, more resources and bigger numbers.
“We’re going to have a significant time fighting this group,” he said.
The only way the corn industry stands a chance is by holding its nose and creating a coalition with organizations that it might not like, such as “rational environmental groups.”
“We need to be able to reach our arms out and bring some people in that we don’t necessarily get along with to respond to that (threat) if we’re going to win this battle.”
