Even if all the corn grown in the US was used for fuel, it would replace only one out of six gallons.

Ethanol has been touted as the solution to our energy and climate crises. But, turning corn into fuel only compounds global hunger. America cannot build our own energy security on the back of people living in poverty—it is morally indefensible and wrong for our own energy, climate, and national security interests. We have an opportunity right now to press the pause button on misguided US corn ethanol policy by telling the EPA to waive the corn ethanol mandate.

Ethanol is not the answer to our oil dependency. Even if all the corn grown in the US was used for fuel, it would replace only one out of six gallons. Ethanol is also not the answer to our changing climate—which itself is driving food prices higher. Corn sounds all natural, but between massive changes in land use needed to grow corn for fuel and the energy costs to process that corn into ethanol, it is hardly greenhouse gas neutral.

Meanwhile, ethanol is contributing to global hunger. Last year, 40 percent of corn grown in the US went to fuel instead of food. If all the land used to grow biofuels for the EU in 2008 had instead been used to grow food, it could have fed 127 million people for an entire year. Major land grabs are happening all over the world, often propelled by the market’s demand for biofuels, leaving marginalized communities without access to traditional land and water to grow food.

Hunger is a moral issue, an economic issue, a health issue, and a national security issue. There were riots around the world in 2008 when food prices spiked. Right now, Yemen is in the grips of a terrible food crisis—almost half of the population is hungry, including one million children. It is not in our national security interest to have people starving in Yemen or in any fragile state.

The governors of North Carolina and Arkansas have asked the EPA to waive the renewable fuel standards mandate, which requires at least 10 percent of unleaded gasoline be made from ethanol. Waiving the corn ethanol mandate will lead to an estimated 7.4 percent drop in global corn prices, which will in turn lower prices for meat, milk, eggs, and more. For people living in poverty who spend up to 75 percent of their income on food, this small change can make a big impact.

The EPA has opened up a public comment period on the waiver, which ends October 11, and so far, more than 5,000 Oxfam supporters have responded. Send in a comment today and stand up for the one billion people who go to bed hungry every day.

Megan Whitacre is a former Oxfam America intern and current CHANGE leader. 

Here in the Midwest, we know farmers can get creative to deal with fluctuating prices. But this summer local farmers are turning their feed trough into an ice cream sundae. In Elkhart County, Indiana, one farmer has started to feed his dairy cows ice cream sprinkles, cookies, marshmallows, and gummy bears to give his cows the energy they need to produce milk. And in Reno County, Kansas, another farmer is feeding his cows thousands of pounds of chocolate scraps from a local chocolate factory.

Dairy cows on a US farm. Jacob Silberberg/Oxfam America

This isn’t just a treat to help cows beat the heat; in fact, it shows how US farmers are resorting to extreme measures to deal with the worst drought in 50 years across big corn and soy-producing states in the Midwest. Last year saw similar problems with drought in the US; as climate change endures, farmers in these states will continue to face hardship, and food prices will continue to surge. This year produced one of the smallest corn yields in 6 years, according to the USDA, and has sent food prices soaring worldwide. Meanwhile, last year, the US burned up 40 per cent of our domestic corn crop to make ethanol—pushing corn and other food prices higher. The corn farmers feed their animals is pricier than it ever has been—and sometimes not available at all.  And when feed prices go up, so does the cost for meat, dairy products, and other food that comes from animals.

Unfortunately, poor people don’t have the option of chowing on chocolate all day to dampen the impact of food costs. Worldwide, poor people bear the brunt of high food prices as food becomes an increasingly larger percentage of their budgets. And in countries where food is already scarce, not only do high prices make food aid increasingly necessary for basic survival, high prices also hinder the ability of thousands to break out of poverty as school costs and basic necessities are lost to the price of food. So it’s not just a lull in the fight against poverty. It’s a huge step back.

Next time you see headlines about food prices, bacon shortages, or even crazy stories about chocolate-eating cows, remember those who are being impacted the most. Organizations like Oxfam are taking a stand to address this growing food crisis. Join us by taking action on October 16 for World Food Day, and educate others about how they can help.

Judy Beals is the Campaigns Director at Oxfam America.

In the past six weeks, world leaders met not once, not twice, but three times to discuss and deliver global solutions to global challenges. The G8, the G20 and Rio+20 received scant media attention during this election year dominated by domestic issues. And while global summits generally deliver more snooze than sizzle, they continue to matter, bringing together heads of state to discuss and, at least potentially, to bring global attention, resources and commitment to the world’s poorest.

With nearly a billion people hungry (including 18 million people in West Africa facing a massive unfolding food crisis), increasingly erratic weather, and a weak global economy, the need for shared solutions to shared problems could not be greater. But world leaders failed to rise to the challenge.

Oxfam stunt before the G8

◄ Back

Next ►

Picture 1 of 10

G8 Leaders look lost looking for food security—signs for shortcuts and silver bullets distract them from the path. Photo: Oxfam America.

As host to the G8—or Group of 8—the US was perhaps best positioned to deliver substantial commitments, especially since President Obama had put global food security squarely on the agenda. But meeting in the secluded Camp David, Maryland, the world’s largest industrialized economies passed the buck. Instead, the G8 tried to fill the gap of their broken promises with a private sector initiative that simply cannot tackle the complex challenges of food insecurity. Only the US recommitted itself to an important initiative started three years ago at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila. On the bright side, some commitments were made to replenish the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), a multi-donor plan that invests in developing country agriculture.

The G20—the group of the world’s 20 major economies—arguably delivered even less. Still relatively new, the G20 has been meeting at the head of state level since 2008 to discuss key issues in the global economy and to promote “strong, sustainable and balanced growth.” Despite opportunities this year to address drivers of food crises—including commodity price volatility and increased demand for biofuels—G20 leaders assembled in Los Cabos, Mexico were unable to move beyond internal disagreement over how to fix the Eurozone. The one bright spot was movement plugging the leak on hundreds of millions of dollars that drain out of poor countries into tax havens every year.

Coming 20 years after the first Earth Summit, Rio+20s ambitions were high to tackle ending poverty and achieving prosperity for all while living within the earth’s limits of fresh water, clean air, and fertile land. While the verdict on action by heads of state at Rio is rightly dismal—there too, at least if you looked hard enough, were glimmers of hope. UN General Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s Zero Hunger Challenge was a welcome ray of hope. Even business leaders produced at least a few positive initiatives at the Corporate Sustainability Forum and the Business Action for Sustainable Development.

Overall, shockingly inadequate outcomes, given the scale and urgency of the challenges? Yes. But I bring a different view. We know that solutions DO exist—to bring about a small-scale agricultural revolution that can feed the 9 billion people who will inhabit this earth by 2050 without destroying the planet; to bring about a green energy revolution; to bring about a more just and sustainable global economy that benefits all of us.

What we face is something we CAN change: political will. And while there wasn’t anywhere near enough of it at Camp David, Los Cabos, or Rio, the growing insistence of civil society, north and south, especially young people, was undeniable.

Our supporters were there. People signed the G8 petition we delivered to President Obama, urging him to launch an ambitious food security partnership with small-scale farmers. Nearly half a million supporters tuned in for our G8 Twitter Town Hall, #G8chat . Before the G20 summit Oxfam supporters helped spread the word about what was at stake.Throughout the summits, our Twitter followers tweeted and retweeted via #DearG8, #TweetG20, and #Rioplus20 about progress (or lack thereof) that leaders were making on our key issues.

Our supporters became part of something that is gaining steam—a new awakening to citizen power—standing up, speaking loudly and clearly for our future. Social media is part of it, but members of our Oxfamily went further—holding events, signing petitions, making phone calls, speaking directly with elected officials, and insisting that their voices be heard.

And that’s exactly what we need to keep doing—building political will—holding leaders accountable and making sure the glitz of summits is matched by real commitments for poor people. GROWing a movement in the present, for now and for the future, like no other the world has ever seen. You can help us do that—by asking your friends, families and social networks to join our GROW campaign—by continuing to stand up, take action, and make your voices heard.

So here’s to summits attempted and at least partially scaled. We have mountains still to climb. Looking forward to our journey together.

Headline: Kenya develops unique Bio-Ethanol Gel Biofuel for Kitchen Use,: “resulting in a viscous yellow liquid that burns slowly with a high heat output…”

Meanwhile, in the USA:

Headline: Feds announce recall of more ethanol fuel gel products: “The recall was made due to serious risks of flash fire and burns when consumers add pourable gel to an already-burning fire pot, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission… is aware of 65 incidents resulting in two deaths and 34 victims who were hospitalized with second degree burns of the face, chest, hands, arms or legs.”

So…Kenya develops a bio-ethanol gel just as ethanol fuel gel products are being taken off the shelves in the US because they are not safe.

Is there any chance that there’s a consumer protection agency in Kenya that could catch this potential risk?

A jatropha plantation in Mozambique where crops are used to produce biofuels. Photo by Brett Eloff/Oxfam America.

Senate votes overwhelmingly to end the ethanol tax credit immediately.

Today the Senate voted 73 to 27 to end the VEETC in July, even though it was scheduled to expire at the end of the year anyway.

At the same, time, the House voted overwhelmingly to prohibit new government investment in ethanol infrastructure. By a vote of 283 to 128, the House voted to prohibit any new spending on pumps and storage facilities for ethanol.

Neither is law and the final result is not yet known. Legislative process has many twists and turns. But both votes send a strong signal that the days of endless ethanol subsidies could soon be over.

On the floor of the US Senate, the struggle has begun that may eventually lead to a serious re-think of US biofuels policy. Yesterday was the first skirmish.

Budget pressures are driving the discussion at the moment, with the expensive ethanol tax credits on the chopping block. The famous budget-cutting Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn (R), offered an amendment with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to end the $6b tax credit. The issue got contentious and wrapped up in partisan procedural complaints. The amendment lost on a vote of 40-59.

While budget pressures loom large, other factors are also driving the need to review the US policies around biofuels. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture announced new projections for corn harvests and prices. The message was to expect high prices and small stockpiles. As one observer said, “It looks like [corn] prices are going to stay high for another year. The food versus fuel debate is going to hot up.” For the first time, more US corn will go to producing ethanol than to feeding livestock.

At the same time, the purported economic benefits of the US investment in ethanol are coming under scrutiny. While ethanol supporters, including US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, claim that the industry supports 400,000 US jobs. Other economists are estimating something more like 46,000. That’s nearly an order of magnitude smaller. And others argue that ethanol and high corn prices aren’t translating into a rural revival.

More votes are expected in the Senate on ethanol subsidies in the near future, and later this year in the House of Representatives.

This all points to a sea-change in the public debate around US biofuels policy and a confirmation that the time is ripe for new ideas and reforms. Good news for the GROW campaign which made reforming biofuels policy a key objective of the effort.

This afternoon Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will speak at the National Press Club in Washington on global food security ahead of the G-20 Agricultural Ministerial in Paris later this month. A quick glance at the USDA media advisory indicates that those looking for “coherence” in US policies on food security may be disappointed:

“Vilsack will discuss how the continued innovation and creativeness of scientists, farmers and policymakers is essential to confront the combined challenges of feeding a growing global population, mitigating the effects of climate change, and meeting increasing energy demands at home and abroad. The Secretary will also address the importance of maintaining open, transparent markets for trading food and agricultural goods, as well as address misconceptions about the production of U.S. biofuels.”

That last line describes in short order the challenges we face. On one hand the US has been a global leader in dealing with the emerging food crisis, championing investment in small holder farmers through Feed the Future and pledges made in 2009 at L’Aquila, beginning to address the challenges farmers face due to climate change, taking important initial steps to rein in excessive commodity speculation through the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, and pushing for increased transparency in food stocks at the G-20 that will help cut back on price volatility.

But at the same time US policies are undermining the very initiatives we are investing in. Take the suite of ethanol incentives that Secretary Vilsack seems poised to defend again this afternoon. This $6 billion dollars in taxpayer funded giveaways drive 40% of the US corn crop- 15% of global corn production- into ethanol, helping push food prices to record heights. The World Bank estimates that high food prices have sent 44 million people into poverty in recent months.

As Secretary Vilsack speaks this afternoon, I hope he will push aside the failed ideas of the past and embrace the burgeoning consensus that we need to change how business is done here in Washington. Already there is strong bipartisan momentum for reform to our biofuels incentives that could take some of the pressure off of prices. Votes are scheduled in the Senate this week to end the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, and to prohibit certain funding for ethanol pumps and storage tanks.

Secretary Vilsack’s speech will call for innovation and creativeness in the face of immense challenges. There would be no better sign of innovation than the Secretary’s full-throated support for these reforms.

Learn more about Oxfam’s work to fight global hunger.

As I wrote a few weeks back, Senator Coburn lit a fire in the ethanol debate with a proposal to eliminate the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), the troublesome subsidy given to ethanol blenders that keeps demand for biofuels artificially high. After he agreed to pull the bill before it was voted on last month and worked with Senator Feinstein, who had crafted a similar piece of legislation, a new proposal was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday. The Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act would eliminate VEETC by July 1.

The tax credit is not set to expire until the end of the year, but the fight is getting heated. In response to the Coburn/Feinstein proposal, Senator Grassley introduced his own proposal that would cut, though not eliminate, ethanol subsidies, an idea the ethanol industry has embraced.

Accompanying this latest effort is the announcement by the FAO that food prices for the month of April remain at historically high levels. Prices remained virtually unchanged in April, though the price of cereal grains, corn in particular, shot up as a result of bad weather in the US. The ethanol lobby will tell you biofuels (and biofuel mandates) have nothing to do with global grain prices. Unbiased experts have a different opinion (.pdf) though.

Maize that will be stored in a village grain bank in Malawi. Food prices for the month of April remained at historically high levels. Photo by Carlo Heathcote/Oxfam.

And even if you don’t buy the argument that our (artificially high) demand for biofuels is behind at least some piece of food price issues, VEETC is just plain expensive (at a time when Congress has vowed to radically reduce government spending). According to one estimate, total government support for ethanol between 2006 and 2012 averaged roughly $10 billion per year (.pdf).

We’re not the only ones on board with Coburn and Feinstein’s effort to repeal VEETC. Fifty organizations signed on their support to the legislation. It’s a shame that ideological rigidity is keeping more critics of our flawed biofuels policy from supporting Senators Coburn and Feinstein.