Here are some implications of the stats you mention. Because so much corn is used indirectly in other segments of our food supply the costs of those food sources is going up too.

Also we feed many millions of the world’s people with that 20%. And that’s the 20% that is being hardest hit by the huge upswing in ethanol demand. As a wealthier nation, we can afford to pay more for our corn than the underdeveloped countries who have historically relied on our exports.

Therefore our corn exports are falling off dramatically, hence the increase in world hunger that we’re facing.

I didn’t mean to seem heartless, Chris. Most corn isn’t used for direct food for human consumption. Look here and you’ll see that over half of the US corn crop is used for animal feed. Less than 2% is used directly for food, and less than 9% in human food products. Less than 20% is exported. In talking about dietary changes, I think more about Americans than most other populations. I eat meat. I have no desire to cut out meat completely. But decreasing it’s usage would free up a lot of grain for human consumption.

I had better be quiet. The next thing you know I’ll be starting a political blog again, then I’ll get high blood pressue, then I’ll have to start on medication for that, then I’ll be raising the cost of health care even higher than I have already raised it.

But to say that we aren’t contributing the cause of world hunger by burning a primary staple food source simply because “they could eat something else” is a bit like having no sympathy for people in a drought caused famine, “well they could move somewhere else.” It seems a little heartless on the face of it.

I agree that people around the world can change their diets. However finding suitable, similar cost food sources takes time.

Keep in mind that every time food gets more expensive in the world, it gets just that much further out of reach for some parts of the world’s population. That’s something the bureaucrats here seem to have overlooked. Go figure.

I don’t know whether it’s productive or not to point out the correlation. It sure is uncomfortable.

But hey, we can just keep trucking along and pretend it’s not our fault. “Let them eat cake.”

Even with the consequences, I would rather see a turn away from capital energy sources such as oil to income energy sources such as corn and other vegetation – including algae, which has been sadly neglected, and in the long run I think would be much more productive.

Blaming the use of corn for energy for world starvation is a bit much, though. While corn products can be found in almost all the food we eat, much of it is in the form of corn syrup for sugar and corn oil. Both of these can be replaced by other sources. Much of the rest of the corn we grow is used for animal feed. Many more people can be supported on a vegetarian diet than on a meat-centered diet.

I don’t feel bad for China. China has farmed the same land for 4000 years, but has managed to destroy a quarter of its farmland since the Maoists took over.

Long term, I just don’t see it being productive to blame the US for world hunger, any more than it is productive to blame the US for global warming or the unstable world situation.

I’m a little on the cynical side but that’s too much for me to swallow. I would hope it is more of a lack of understanding of the world corn market.

Ignorant sounds so much better to me than evil.

My daughters probably have never smelled unadditived gas, but you remember it. And you probably remember when they first started mix-ins and thinking “that just don’t smell right!” And your gut reaction was spot on.

Anyway, I think the price is lower in Iowa because, given a choice, people go with their gut (and nose).

I don’t think you have to go any farther in analyzing why people aren’t buying into it. Yet there may also be an subconscious questioning of “there are hungry people all over the world; is the right answer to our energy problems performing unnatural acts to our food supply?”

If we’re going to throw money at the problem, spend it to tap the biomass in our landfills and end tariffs on Brazilian sugar (which is a cheaper source of ethanol). Wait. What’s that you say, Senator? We can’t do that because it won’t get you votes in the Iowa primary? Oh, right. Maybe THAT’S why people aren’t jumping on the bandwagon. The whole idea fails the sniff test on multiple levels!

Mike