Before addressing some of the onerous points in your piece, please take a look at the attached photo. This is not from the BP spill in the Gulf but rather the latest incident in Michigan which has dumped a million gallons of oil into a river and is now 80 miles from polluting Lake Michigan. Oil is and always has been a loaded gun from an environmental perspective.  From leaking tanks at service stations to oil tankers grounded on coral reefs in storms. No more explanation needed on this one.

However, perhaps the biggest point you fail to address is wind, coal, and geothermal don’t make your car go. Natural gas can be used as an automotive fuel but it too is not renewable and has other issues I won’t go into here today. Solar….I’ll race you with my bicycle.

Will ethanol be made from other sources some day?  Undoubtedly. Other biomass sources show real potential and will come with the proper research and development, but corn-based technology and infrastructure is the very launching platform for this effort. Yet opponents would have us build our domestic energy house without a foundation.

Ethanol…dubious environmental benefit? Line up the hundreds of studies regarding ethanol, look at the funding sources and consider what is left. What you will find is a long trail of reputable scientists and institutions public, private and governmental that clearly shows the environmental benefits of ethanol.

When compared to petroleum especially, ethanol is a rock star in regard to cleaning the air, maintaining water quality, and soil management. On the oil side think tar sands.

Your reference to the land use issue is also comical. Incredible productivity on our existing corn acres is easily supplying the growing ethanol industry while also meeting the needs of other markets. And yield growth is accelerating.

And finally, I think we must aggressively pursue all forms of renewable, domestic energy given the finite nature of petroleum and do so in good conscience because of the legacy we stand to leave future generations. To suggest we put our entire energy investment in “maybe someday” sources while ignoring a viable and tested source like ethanol is shortsighted at best.

“The New Food Puritans” is a fascinating article on a website I just found called “Truth in Food.” The post is great, but the full interview with author Mary Eberstadt is even better and well worth 22 minutes of your listening time. Besides being an author, Eberstadt is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and consulting editor to the Institution’s bimonthly Policy Review

The post and interview are based on an essay Eberstadt wrote last year called “Is Food the New Sex?” which puts forth the premise that while modern society places no restrictions on sexual behaviors – anything goes because it is just “personal choice” – today’s new moralists are instead judgmental about the food choices people make. That is, we have mindless sex but mindful eating. “I find it really interesting that these two codes, one about food and one about sex, seem to be existing in this inverse relationship, where as one gets stricter the other gets more lenient,” she says in the interview.

Very interesting theory put forth by a very intelligent lady with strong conservative Christian values. There is some other great stuff on the “Truth in Food” website worth a read – like “The Ten Reasons Why They Hate You So” – They being the anti-production agriculture movement and You being – farmers. Be sure to read the comments on that one too – seemed to touch a pretty raw nerve with some folks! You can also find Truth in Food on Facebook. Thanks to my friend Ray Bowman with the Kentucky Sheep and Goat Development Office for pointing me in their direction!

 The most recent attack on corn-based ethanol provides a great example of how these coordinated efforts are staged. The current outbreak, which began Sunday, hit the nation’s top tier opinion leaders on Sunday and Monday and began showing up in large regional daily newspapers like the Des Moines Register and the Columbus Dispatch the last two days. Many local papers can be expected to jump on the passing train by week’s end bringing yet another 6 day ethanol drubbing to an end.

 Editorials like this don’t happen in a vacuum, especially the main Op-ed pieces with no names attached because they represent the “official opinion” of the newspaper. In fact most editorial writers rarely leave the paper to venture into the real world to form their very articulate opinions.

 Most sit in their secluded offices each day and read others opinions, research the internet and read other papers trolling for ideas. However, most also hold court each day where the powerful and the influential come calling with their hat in their hand and try to persuade the editor to write a piece reflecting their position.

 If you happen to work at a large East Coast news outlet you have a tremendous amount of power because these folks generally start all news cycles and take the lead on deciding which issues get ink or airtime. Some people (yes, I know a few) make a good living professionally coaching CEOs in business and even government officials on how to best present and sell their message. Most have a news background and they use their contacts to grant attain access for others and grease the skids for their client.

 Why would someone go to such great lengths and even spend huge sums on Public Relations/Public Affairs companies to help them hone their talking points and put together professional information packets? Because if you hit a home run with someone like the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post, competing editors elsewhere will scramble to get something out as soon as possible and hope nobody notices they didn’t have it first. A sort of race begins. In this race it is ok to be second or even third but just like in the Olympics…nobody cares who got fourth place.

 An ad in one of these publications can cost $40,000 to $100,000 and quite honestly people are more likely to read the Op-ed pages of most newspapers. This is a high-value piece of journalistic real estate. Now, keeping the aforementioned flu effect in the news business in mind, compound that cost times space in six of the largest newspapers in the county and dozens of influential dailies from coast to coast. And things are getting worse. As the print industry struggles with the economy, many newspapers are cutting editorial staffs, meaning more and more papers are paying for services where they can all access and run the very same editorials verbatim.

 Is the light going on yet? So why doesn’t everyone do this? Because it is not a low stakes game.  In order to have a profound effect the process is expanded and repeated over and over. Experts are hired to reinforce the company’s position. Interviews are shopped to cable news outlets and talk shows. In a full out assault like the one hitting ethanol the last few years millions of dollars have been spent. So who is writing the checks? Stay tuned. The Brazilian sugar cane industry is next.

“Taxpayers would save more than $6 billion through elimination of the tax credit, or almost $7.00 per gallon of ethanol produced in excess of mandated amounts.”

First, ignore the fact that ISU does not explain the $7 per gallon adequately in its report. What does it mean to say that taxpayers would save? Which taxpayers? Are we all going to see a tax cut of some sort?

I don’t think so. In fact, the opposite is true. Removing a tax credit is a tax increase on those who used to receive the tax credit – and I’m sure they will pass it along to us consumers.

Perhaps that’s why the preceding sentence says this, as if it’s a good thing:

“Elimination of the tax credit would shift the burden of meeting mandates from taxpayers to blenders and consumers.”

I’ll let another blogger talk about this further while I scratch my head a little. Here’s Jim Lane at Biofuels Digest:

“Ah, note that the change will ‘shift the burden’ from taxpayers to consumers and blenders who are, uh, taxpayers. The study does not say that the cost of producing ethanol, or fossil fuels that replace additional ethanol, will go down. Simply that the burden for producing energy will shift. That’s not quite the same thing as a savings.”

Eliminating these tax credits will give the government more money to spend elsewhere. It’s as simple as that. And removing the ethanol tax credit and the tariff will benefit foreign ethanol over domestic ethanol. That’s why this report was funded by foreign energy interests.

In our society we will spend ludicrous sums on money on things like cars, cell phones, or even a cup of trendy coffee, yet we continue to demand access to all the bounty Mother Nature has to offer at discount prices.

It is a modern miracle that the largest consumptive offenders on the planet – Americans – also have the cheapest food supply on terra firma. We spend less than 10% of our disposable income on actual food items compared to other developed nations that spend as much as 15% to 50% of what they earn to put food on the table.

There are numerous factors that make this access to cheap and abundant food possible including a wildly productive agricultural core that produces key crops like wheat, corn, and soybeans. These staple crops provide the very foundation of the “real” food pyramid. These are crops that we have learned to grow fairly predictably on a large scale even when Mother Nature hits us with challenging weather. In the worst-case scenario when weather, insects or disease reduces the size of these crops we have a certain amount in reserve.

However, with a growing emphasis on more fruits and vegetable in our diet, there are also those calling for more and more taxpayers dollars to shift from existing farm programs to encourage and expand farmers markets and produce production. Striking a reasonable balance won’t be easy but it will be critical.

While many produce items have a shelf life of weeks or months at best, corn, soybeans and wheat can be transported more readily and stored for years.  The authors of the original farm bill understood this and chose to put their emphasis and limited budget into programs that help growers of these keystone crops make it through tough times.

Times have changed and the farm bill is antiquated in many ways, but the importance of these key crops has not waned. The farm bill in the U.S. is not a perfect piece of legislation, few are that have become this big and cumbersome.

But today’s “farm bill” is a misnomer since the lion’s share of the expenditures go to social programs like women, infant and children, school lunches, food stamps and even forestry. Yet critics like to cultivate the illusion that it all goes to farmers.

As we continue to analyze and discuss these consumer support programs – yes, it is a consumer program that helps guarantees you the aforementioned cheap food over the long haul – it is important we do a little homework before making wholesale changes.

In the interim keep this in mind; if we stopped growing green beans or carrots tomorrow the world would not end. But if we see big reductions in crops like corn, soybeans or wheat the loss of essential oils, protein and other precious calories would change the food universe as you know it. Likely wouldn’t do our economy or our balance of trade much good either.

From a corn grower perspective the GTS info is more than a little interesting because ethanol critics often argue increased ethanol production drives demand for U.S. corn, reduces U.S. soybean acres, and thus opens the door for more soybean acres – and more deforestation – in South America.

The tactic has always been a bit suspect because the vast majority of new corn demand is being filled through burgeoning yields on existing U.S. acres. Even more interesting is this convoluted logic is now being drawn into serious doubt by an effort that uses real-world data rather than speculation and hyperbole.

The industry-led project in the Brazilian Amazon, now in its third years shows land clearing for cattle remains a much bigger contributor to than diversion than expanding soy production.

GTS, a coalition that includes their Ministry of the Environment, NGOs, exporters and civil society organizations, uses a combination of state of the art satellite technology and on-the-ground shoe leather assessment to gauge deforestation and any relationship to crops, specifically soy planting.

A company called Globalsat conducted flyovers and field visits in Brazil’s Mato Grosso, Para, and Rondonia part of the Amazon Biome and the virtual epicenter of Brazilian soybean production.

Ethanol bashers seem to be remarkably mum on this revelation. Hmmm

Members of the Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA), Malta Bend FFA and Mid-Missouri Energy, a farmer-owned ethanol plant, donated 3,366 pounds of sweet corn for Missouri families in need. The fresh produce was delivered to Harvesters Community Food Network in Kansas City, Missouri to help feed hungry families in the region.

“While sweet corn isn’t something we normally plant in these fields, we realize there are people in our community and in the city facing tough times,” said Billy Thiel, MCGA board member and corn grower from Marshall, Mo. “This sweet corn is one way Missouri corn growers can show that we care about our neighbors and that we are committed to feeding and fueling a growing population.”

In the top photo, Karen Haren, president and CEO of Harvesters (center), accepts the donation of sweet corn from MCGA board members Mike Moreland and Billy Thiel, and members of the Malta Bend FFA Chapter. The food bank estimates today’s donation will provide nearly 2,600 meals to help combat hunger in the region. (Click on the photos for a bigger view)

During a presentation at the ethanol plant, which provided land for the sweet corn plot, Mid-Missouri Energy President Ryland Utlaut (and former National Corn Growers Association president) thanked the Malta Bend FFA Chapter for their help in harvesting the crop. Congressman Ike Skelton and State Representative Joe Aull (pictured at left) also applauded Missouri Corn, the Malta Bend FFA and MME for the donation. The event helped to educate the media and the general public about the importance of corn and ethanol to the Missouri economy, and the difference between sweet corn and field corn grown in the state.

The donated fresh produce will be distributed through Harvesters vast network, resulting in nearly 2,600 meals for hungry families. Serving a 26-county area of northwestern Missouri and northeastern Kansas, Harvesters provides food and related household products to more than 620 not-for-profit agencies including emergency food pantries, soup kitchens and homeless shelters.

Read more about the project and see more photos here.

First, only a small percentage of corn grown in the United States becomes ethanol — about one in five bushels, when you account for the ethanol coproducts used as livestock feed. The story might as well have blamed golf courses.

Second, the hypoxic zone has changed widely from year to year, with no connection to increased ethanol production.

Finally, everyone admits that there are numerous causes for hypoxia besides agriculture, including urban runoff and industrial sewage, and that there is still a lot we don’t know about hypoxia. Focusing on only one cause out of many will never lead to a more complete solution.

The Chronicle story came out of the Chronicle’s Washington bureau, and Washington is home to many BP lobbyists and anti-ethanol crusaders, so someone obviously pitched this idea to the writer. There is a series of attacks being waged on corn farmers and ethanol producers by people who are a little concerned that the Gulf oil disaster is bad news for some the oil industry and want to divert attention away.

Both Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association have done a good job this week countering these critics. Click on their names to take a look. We’ve published research on this, too.

I also saw a lot of cars with Flex-Fuel logos on the back, and wished we had the same with our 2006 Toyota Sienna. But that was not an option.

This past weekend, Robert Zubrin wrote a great piece in the Washington Times calling for open fuel standards. The idea is to get more cars on the road that can handle a variety of fuels, whether it foreign-oil-based gasoline, domestic-and-renewable corn ethanol, or even methanol.  This would add about a hundred bucks to the price of the car and give us more energy independence, which means more energy security.

As Zubrin puts it:

“We are not addicted to oil. Our cars are addicted to oil. They are like a tribe of people who, because of some unfortunate flaw, can only eat one kind of food, say herring. Thus, if the herring merchants combine to rig up the price of their product to $100 per pound, the tribesmen have no choice but to submit. They would be far better off if they could become omnivores, capable of eating steak, ice cream, corn, eggs, apples, etc., as the power to use such alternatives would make them immune from herring-cartel extortion.”

It’s time to see more energy freedom on the roads — not just in the Corn Belt, but across the Land of the Free.

Photo: Zubrin autographs his book “Energy Victory” at the 2009 Commodity Classic.

Why are they suing?

I get the whole health and nutrition thing. I applaud CSPI for helping to clarify food labeling so we can make more informed food purchases. However, when organizations begin imposing their value system on the rest of us in the name of the public good, I get a little cranky.

Where will this “do-gooding” stop? We’ve already experienced the attack of the HFCS (corn sweetener) bogey man. The Michael Pollans of the world continue to demonize corn in biblical proportions, and HSUS would like nothing better than to remove meat from the human palate. How are these efforts going to improve the health and nutrition of a hungry and growing world population?

Many of these strange attacks are spurred on by business or personal agendas. They are veiled in a way that consumers don’t see the motivation and begin to wonder if anything is safe anymore. Or they just plain tune out. Personally, I don’t consider someone else’s morals or their profit motives to be great condiments or a particularly savory addition to my diet.

Successful enterprises consistently deliver on their promise to provide consumers with what they expect. For the most part, I feel I make informed purchases. My repeat purchases are a direct result of delivering on my expectation. Disappointment is my number one reason to abandon a product or service. When my expectation changes and a company doesn’t adapt, I get disappointed and go elsewhere for my needs.  

I know the end of the Happy Meal will not change the course of history, just some family history. McDonalds delivers a product and service that allows me to have memorable teaching moments with my kids. In our household, Happy Meals are a treat, not a food group. We talk about the difference between nutritious foods and treats. These dining experiences create opportunities for me to peer into my children’s imaginations through play, and develop an appreciation of the world from their point of view. For us, this is quality family time.

 This is the happy in my Happy Meal.