Corn-Based Ethanol Killing the Tortilla

Mexico is in the grip of the worst tortilla crisis in its modern history. Dramatically rising international corn prices, spurred by demand for the grain-based fuel ethanol, have led to expensive tortillas. That, in turn, has led to lower sales for vendors such as Rosales and angry protests by consumers.

In other words, by producing ethanol from corn, we are literally taking food from the mouths of poor, hungry people. And not just any food, but the staple of peoples' diets.  According to the Post article (quoting Amanda G+ílvez, a nutrition expert at the National Autonomous University of Mexico),  "Poor Mexicans get more than 40 percent of their protein from tortillas."  Not only that, but:

The tortilla-making process, G+ílvez said, releases antioxidants and niacin, which allows them to be absorbed by the body, and the membranes on each corn kernel provide important dietary fiber. As a result of eating tortillas, Mexican children have a very low incidence of rickets, a bone disease caused by calcium deficiency that is common in developing countries.

"It is absolutely crucial for our population to keep eating tortillas," G+ílvez  said.

In other words, tortillas are a crucial part of the diet for poor Mexicans. But now, tortillas in Mexico are becoming unaffordable as corn-based ethanol production in the United States pushes up corn prices around the world.  This is not just wrong, it's also potentially dangerous for Mexico's political stability:

In another place, a rise in the cost of a single food product might not set off a tidal wave of discontent. But Mexico is different.

"When you talk about Mexico, when you talk about culture and societal roots, when you talk about the economy, you talk about the tortilla," said Lorenzo Mej+¡a, president of a tortilla makers trade group. "Everything revolves around the tortilla."

In other words, add potential political instability and worse nutrition for poor Mexicans to the long list of problems with corn-based ethanol:

*Corn-based ethanol takes large amounts of energy to grow, harvest, and process.  Some scientists estimate you actually get LESS energy from the ethanol production process than you put into it. Other, most "optimistic" studies - many of which have been funded by ethanol or corn-growing interests - have indicated a small (10%? maybe 20%), net energy gain from corn-based ethanol.

*Corn-based ethanol requires massive subsidies to produce.  That's right, According to the Wall Street Journal, "it will cost U.S. taxpayers $120 for every barrel of oil saved by making ethanol. Some 'savings.'"

*Corn-based ethanol is bad for the environment.  According to the New York Times:

Because farmers will apply more nitrogen to boost yields (leading to more nitrogen pollution) and, since soy bean prices are down, they will be tempted to return to a +óGé¼+ôcorn-on-corn+óGé¼-¥ rotation. That is, rather than rotate their corn crops with soy beans (a legume that builds nitrogen in he soil), farmers will plant corn year after year, requiring still more synthetic nitrogen and doing long-term damage to the land.

*Corn-baeed ethanol uses huge volumes of precious and irreplaceable water resources. According to a recent article on this subject, in the Plains states, where most U.S. corn is grown, the Ogallala Aquifer - "the largest underground reservoir in the United States and one of the largest on the planet" - is being rapidly depleted:

..[the Ogallala] once held as much water as Lake Huron. It is a treasure that took millennia to accumulate. Remarkably, it could cease to be a water source within another generation.

And for what? To provide water to irrigators who grow surplus, subsidized corn -- the thirstiest of grain crops.

*Corn-based ethanol requires huge amounts of land. As of 2004, the United States consumed 133 billion gallons of gasoline.  To replace all this with ethanol would require 333 million acres of land.  And that's not even taking into account the energy required to produce the ethanol. To put that into perspective, 333 million acres is  almost as much as current total of U.S. cropland (434 million acres), and actually MORE than harvested  cropland in this country.

*Corn-based ethanol is a huge corporate welfare boondoggle for big agribusiness, like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), which makes at least 40% of the stuff.  According to the environmental magazine Grist:

Even ethanol's most fervent apologists concede that it would have no market without sustained government action. In the 20 years the government has been supporting ethanol, ADM's ethanol line has gone from almost nothing to ADM's second-largest contributor to profit.

*Corn-based ethanol is bad for the American consumer of corn-based products, including meat.  For instance, at this past week's Iowa Pork Congress, "ethanol was the talk of the two-day show" as "higher corn prices have raised the cost of producing pork enough that hog producers probably will lose money this month for the first time in three years."  As the trend towards higher corn costs continues, it will lead to "lower profit margins for livestock producers and higher prices for consumers at the meat counter."

In sum, ethanol is an unmitigated disaster in just about every way - environmental, budgetary, energy balance ramifications, consumer prices, you name it.  And now, you can add potential malnutrition among poor Mexicans who can no long afford tortillas, and potential political instability in Mexico and other poor nations that rely on corn.

So why on earth are we doing this, and why is President Bush pushing it as some sort of "answer" to our energy problems?  Just follow the money.  In 2004, for instance, agribusiness gave $53 million in political contributions, of which $38 million went to Republicans and $15 million to Democrats.  Talk about spreading your money around.  Obviously, ADM and other big agribusiness companies aren't giving this money out of the goodness of their hearts, either.  You think they might just WANT something for their tens of millions of dollars?  Like a few billion dollars per year in subsidies on ethanol, perhaps?  Hmmmm....

Comments