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.

 He doesn’t have a farming background and isn’t invested in the ethanol industry so he is a neutral and somewhat uninformed observer. He is also one of the busiest guys I know so for him to notice it means the anti-ethanol crowd are now officially pervasive. Apparently, it’s not just me feeling paranoid.

 The conversation came back to me in a hurry this week with the latest “ethanol is evil” Tsunami rolling across the country once again. It started with the Wall Street Journal  (No link here because you have to pay for this tripe) and the Washington Post and worked its way across the country hitting the Chicago Tribune and Des Moines Register yesterday and likely making its way for the West Coast like some cheap traveling circus.

 And like the aforementioned Circus the anti-ethanol gang leave a trail behind much like Barnum and Bailey’s elephants only there is no guy with a shovel and bucket cleaning up in their wake. They leave their load of “misinformation” to fester in the road in full knowledge that most people are also too busy to check the veracity of their propaganda.

 The public lynching of ethanol began with the bogus food vs. fuel charade in 2008 and since then has continued to resurface over and over again in several different guises that get trotted out and recycled whenever opportunity presents itself.

 Several things remain consistent as the attacks continue. The noxious cocktail they serve up is made with equal parts of the best bad science money can buy and poor logic. And the olive on the toothpick seems to be just plain old avarice.

 That’s greed, materialism, or covetousness with a Capital “C.” The people fanning the fires of these attacks have rationale and motivation that are simple if not transparent. They are the folks that want the cheapest corn possible because it boosts their profits; want ethanol to be made from another source; or want ethanol crippled forever because the market share just got too big.

 So, for the next couple of days come back here and you will get a sneak peak each day of some of these players and the Machiavellian games they play and fund all to snuff out the only real competition that imported petroleum faces in the marketplace today…ethanol.

Speaking to a couple of family farmers recently they expressed their frustration at the misinformation, innuendo and outright fabrications that are being used to frame their chosen profession. As upset as they were, there was also a prevalent sense that there was nothing they could do to change things.

If you are frustrated and tired of all the attacks and negative news swirling around agriculture you have come to the right place. Read slowly, soak this up, and then if you are a corn farmer give yourself a big pat on the back.

Imagine 60,000 city people getting a positive message about farmers every day. As they go to and from work, go out for dinner, go to a movie, or just go about their life in general. Next imagine that most of these people are employed in jobs on or near Capitol Hill in Washington, DC…Congressmen, staffers, agency employees, lobbyists, environmental groups, and even media. That’s what is happening right now as you read this thanks to the efforts of farmers themselves.

In the attached photo of the Union Station Metro stop in Washington, DC you can see several of the ads that will be prevalent throughout June and July as part of CFC’s efforts.  From the highly trafficked Metro system, to Reagan National Airport, to the most widely read political publications like Politico and Congressional Quarterly. Throw in on-line advertising at the aforementioned publications, WashingtonPost.com, National Public Radio, ads in the Washington Nationals baseball team programs, and a smattering of talk, sports, and contemporary radio and you begin to get a feel for the breadth and scope of this campaign. It is conservatively estimated the educational campaign will create more than 10 million positive impressions in the land of policy and regulation.

Equally as impressive is that CFC, and the $1 million in corn checkoff funds backing the campaign, comes straight from family farmers in Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas and Michigan who believe we need to introduce a foundation of facts to the dialogue in Washington.

Ten messages based on USDA and EPA facts will be used in the campaign to show tech-savvy, innovative farmers are growing more corn every year – for food, animal feed, ethanol and exports – while using fewer resources and protecting the environment.

The coalition will meet with media, members of Congress, environmental groups and others to talk about what’s ahead: how U.S. farmers, using the latest technologies, will continue to expand yields and how this productivity can be a bright spot in an otherwise struggling economy.

We have a great story to tell so take heart.  You can make a difference and CFC offers clear evidence.

CEO, National Corn Growers Association

 An old saying states that you can tell the measure of someone by the company they keep.  In that regard, the American Meat Institute is keeping some rather curious company these days as it wages war on an imagined enemy, the corn ethanol industry.  AMI recently signed onto political letters and advertisements with environmental extremists like Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group that they should avoid at all costs. These three organizations have all attacked animal agriculture with the same level of rhetoric as PETA or the Humane Society.

 As the self-proclaimed representative of the “companies that process 95 percent of red meat and 70 percent of turkey in the U.S. and their suppliers throughout America,” AMI really should avoid such curious connections.

I recently asked someone very familiar with the membership of AMI – companies like Tyson’s, Smithfield and Hormel – to help me understand the logic that would persuade AMI to take these actions.  He laughed and said, “You have to realize, these are companies whose business is ‘blood on the floor,’ and all that they can see is short-term.”

Fortunately, most of the rest of agriculture is trying to take a long-term view and has realized that it is high time to put petty differences aside and agree to disagree on certain issues – like ethanol policy, with the realization that we all have much greater battles to fight with those outside of agriculture who are threatening to undermine the very fabric and structure that has made us the most successful and productive sector in the U.S. economy.

Among the challenges common to row-crop and animal agriculture are the following:

• The Humane Society of the United States, whose goal is to completely change the structure of animal agriculture in the United States. If successful, it would result in a significant increase in the cost of meat produced here, drive much of our meat production out of the U.S. and undermine much of the demand base for row crop agriculture.  AMI should be solidly opposed to HSUS and be an active part of the groups that are working to oppose HSUS.  Instead, they are embracing Friends of the Earth, a solid ally of HSUS and a cohort in HSUS efforts.
• Indirect land use change. AMI signed on to letters supporting the application of this mythological impact of biofuels.  In EPA and California Air Resource Board modeling, that single theory changed domestic ethanol and biodiesel from being advanced biofuels to being worse in greenhouse gas measures than gasoline.  If that sticks, where will that put the carbon footprint of the domestic livestock industry – the single-largest user of U.S. corn and soybeans?
• Commodity prices. Seemingly the reason AMI has formed its unholy coalition is to make more corn and soybeans available and at a cheaper price, for the livestock industry and eliminate the competition for such by the ethanol industry.  Yet AMI’s “allies” in this fight roundly condemn corn and soybean production as environmentally unfriendly.  An NRDC representative, in recent Congressional testimony, suggested that we grow “too much” corn in the United States and we ought to be growing less.  NRDC also has promoted eating “grass-fed” over “corn-fed” beef.
• House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson. Regardless of political affiliation, few of us in agriculture can help but be grateful for congressional leadership like that of Rep. Peterson.  Apparently AMI is one of those few. Their friend and ally, Friends of Earth, last month named Chairman Peterson their 2010 “Biofool of the Year.”

 AMI’s high-profile, expensive media and ad campaign is nothing but classic short-term thinking and “blood on the floor” mentality.  What is to gain in the short-run by embracing the very people who are out to put you out of business?  Their recent ad spawned an editorial in the Washington Times this week titled “Stop Big Corn.”  Just as emotional labels like “factory farming” and “corporate farms” are unfortunate, inaccurate and misleading, with more than nine out of 10 farms being family-run, so are labels like “Big Corn.”

The American Meat Institute is doing itself and its industry and all of agriculture a major disservice by engaging in these scorched-earth tactics and being a part of this unholy alliance.  It’s time for some long-term thinking and for all of us in agriculture to work together and not split ourselves apart. There are plenty of folks doing a pretty good job of that – they don’t need any help from AMI.

House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota has received a great honor – he was named the “Friends of the Earth Biofool of the Year.” The award was established by FOE “to recognize leaders that promote dirty biofuels” – especially corn ethanol.

Chairman Peterson should be very proud of this award, since he received almost 2,300 votes from FOE members and was the clear winner among five nominees – many of whom are very deserving, like
Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association. Hard to believe that he beat out the “Reverend of Renewables!” For a good laugh – watch the video of the FOEs going to present Peterson with the award. They even include a can of corn with the presentation – which has nothing to do with corn ethanol, of course.

Peterson won the award from FOE primarily because of his work to make the Waxman-Markey climate bill more favorable for agriculture and biofuels. According to FOE, Peterson’s Biofoolery includes, “demanding that the EPA stop factoring deforestation into environmental impact assessments of biofuels, trying to exempt dirty biofuels from key global warming standards, and trying to open forests and natural areas for biofuels exploitation.”

Congratulations to Chairman Peterson. We need more fools like that on the Hill!

 From a bogus land use argument that could curtail future ethanol expansion to an ongoing review of atrazine, arguably the most widely studied and repeatedly exonerated chemical of all time, EPA has clearly lost its grip on its operational directive if not its mission.

 The most recent example is EPA’s decision to move forward with banning carbofuran (Furadan), one of the few effective products against rootworm available on the market. (It also makes non-biotech corn production possible to service important overseas markets).

 “EPA’s unprecedented attempt to deny any review of its science deprives the registrant and the growers who use carbofuran the right to prove that the product is safe, and represents a bold abuse of power in contradiction of the agency’s earlier commitments to transparency and good science,” said Dr. Michael Morelli, Director of Global Regulatory Affairs for FMC Corporation. 

 Dr. Morelli’s comments would sound kind of self serving coming from the maker of carbofuran except the same comments are being whispered by some surprising people in Washington, DC hallways. Hopefully, someone will go public soon and rein in this zealous and misdirected agency.

 “The Agency (EPA) is attempting to review a host of issues in the next twelve months that previously took more than a decade to consider.  This creates a false sense of urgency and causes our members to question the motivation behind this process,” Rod Snyder
National Corn Growers Association Director, Public Policy told the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel this week during a presentation on EPA’s approach to reevaluate atrazine.

 Perhaps even more concerning are the public comments by EPA that these efforts represent just shades of things to come in the months ahead related to agricultural issues from chemicals to water management. The strategy seems to be to throw as many grenades in the room as possible and see which one farmers and the Ag industry want to fall on.

 If EPA is interested in adhering to principles of transparency and sound science they can start by providing adequate time for the public to review relevant materials and provide input.   They might also consider not raiding important tools in farmer’s agronomic toolbox during harvest when they don’t have time to respond.

Since you have a critical job, like feeding and fueling the world, it is understandable that you have other things on your radar but there are things you can do besides sending a membership check that are equally important.  Amazingly enough they do not take a lot of time but do more good than you know. Something as simple as an email to a Congressman or a text message to a Senator can affect serious change when it is in concert with like-minded growers across the U.S.

If you really want to tell consumers how and why you farm a computer or a cell phone can be your megaphone even in the busiest of times. Michele Payn-Knoper, who has deep Ag roots, says bluntly that Social Media “is Ag’s opportunity to reach a massive number of people” and even the right people. (check out her latest video message).

Think Facebook, Twitter and Blogging are the domain of the young; then you might want to think again. Twitter is dominated by people 35-44 years of age…the movers and shakers in our society and Facebook – you guessed it – not teenagers either.  Facebook is now about the same size of the U.S population with 300 million users.  Hopefully that spells opportunity to you, notes Knoper, who has turned her passion into a business called Cause Matters Corp.

Payn-Knoper (@mpaynknoper on Twitter) is part of a growing agricultural presence in the Social Media community who think our industry needs a reality check.

If we want consumers to know where their food comes from and how it is raised, then we have an obligation to get engaged. If you don’t have an interest in regular participation in Social media joining an Ag organization like National Corn Growers Association is a short cut and a time saver. They can tell you when action is needed, suggest key talking points on why an issue is important to your farm, and provide the email or fax number you need.

In the days and weeks ahead please consider getting more engaged and making a commitment to send a fax or email to an elected official when asked. If all of you participate, imagine how the ripple caused by your message can become a tidal wave of 36,378 messages.

 Apparently more growers are getting the message every day as evidenced by the National Corn Growers Association’s continued Membership growth.  With rolls growing from 35,046 to 36,378 growers at the end of August, NCGA now enjoys record membership. Thanks for taking this key step.

Recently, DTN interviewed the increasingly infamous Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” who is also featured in the new documentary Food Inc., and the resulting article drew a considerable amount of attention and criticism from the Ag community.

So much so that Urban Lehner, Editor and Chief of DTN, felt compelled to write a column explaining why the Ag-Centered media outlet would provide a forum for such a food heretic.

In his own words, “When DTN writes about such people as Michael Pollan whose views are contrary to those of the majority of our readers, it isn’t because we think all their views are correct. It’s because we think such people have the power to shape the political environment in which agriculture will operate in the future.” Lehner said. “Pollan’s views certainly aren’t those of most Midwestern commercial farmers. Among other things, he sees corn as an agent of evil, responsible for much of what’s wrong with the modern American diet. But when those farmers call him an idiot they make the classic mistake of underestimating a formidable opponent.”

Lehner likened the running of Pollan’s comments to the same reason DTN weathermen predict stormy weather…forewarned is fore-armed. Having been exposed to Mr. Pollan’s message as well as its’ effect on consumers and more importantly on decision leaders in Washington, D.C., I can guarantee you the threat of his growing influence is real.

“The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” the New York Times best seller written by Pollan, is swallowed by many well-reasoned consumers as foodie gospel. DTN and Urban Lehner deserve the industry’s gratitude for alerting us to the hurricane on the horizon. His advice that farmers all should read his book is solid. If you don’t want to contribute to Mr. Pollan’s personal wealth buy a copy and share it with friends…lots of friends.

No matter what your opinion of the Food Inc. documentary might be, my opinion of the latest social media tool – Twitter – took a huge leap to the positive side today. Twitter was atwitter today with one of the liveliest discussions on the Food. Inc. movie or agriculture in general that I have seen in a long time.

Some of the online comments were rude, many were funny or insightful, some were hopelessly naive, and all made you think at some level. And interestingly enough many from the agriculture community from the crop and livestock side were in the thick of the discussion….slow phone line speed and all. You are to be commended. It you aren’t on Twitter, get their quick…. www.twitter.com

Robert Kenner, Food Inc. Director, was featured and online to answer questions.  (Long after Mr. Kenner left the discussion tweets continued…for 4 hours before I stopped keeping track) He may have created a questionable documentary and as one participant in the Twitter chat said today…”food and politics should never be served on the same plate,” but he deserves credit for putting himself out there in such a public forum. And at least this forum, unlike Good Morning America or the upcoming Nightline segment on his project,  allowed both sides to be heard. For a movie reviewer’s perspective go to: http://bit.ly/14IocQ

If you don’t have time here it is in a nutshell:

“The side effect of a well-executed horror film is lack of sleep. The side effect of a well-executed documentary on corruption of our food supply is lack of appetite. Personally? I left “Food, Inc.,” went straight to lunch and had a big ole’ fried-chicken salad.  Unfortunately for this film, one of the most valuable elements of education is learning to separate fact from bias and to seek proof in the form of evidence. “Food, Inc.” seems to cloud the presentation with a whole lot of bias and little proof.”

Now on to some jewels from today’s Twitter discussion:

I loved Variety’s review of Food Inc…it did for supermarkets what Jaws did for the beach.

How do you answer the need to feed a doubling or global population without utilizing any technology? Seems selfish to not look beyond the U.S.

Farmers are growing what they are paid for. We need to create a system where they can make money growing healthier foods.

Going back to how cattle used to be raised would require an added 16.5 million acres of land.

Gotta point this out moviemakers, Roundup soybeans are not insect resistant but herbicide tolerant.

I think we need diversity is Ag which means men and women, big and small, modern and old school. Room for all in Ag

Ag employs 21 million or 15% of the total U.S. workforce. The only entity employing more is government.

Dr. Robert Zubrin, author of Energy Victory, had a commentary last week in Roll Call that hit the nail on the head when it comes to the irrationality of ILUC. Zubrin writes, “Whatever one might think of the right of poor foreign countries to economic development, the indirect analysis method of carbon accounting must be rejected by American policymakers because, if it is embraced, it must perforce prevent the implementation of any positive policies here, not just in biofuel production, but in any field of endeavor whatsoever.”

Zubrin says if ILUC is applied to biofuels, it should also be applied to “all measures that improve the economy, education, health, the environment or technology.” Why? “Because all of these help humanity, and so long as humanity engages in any activities that cause carbon emissions, anything that helps humanity can also be said to cause global warming.” That is simply brilliant.

Meanwhile, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said last week that he expects the controversial indirect land use change proposal for the renewable fuels standard will be removed in the final EPA rule.

“Quite frankly I can tell you we’ll never see it,” Harkin said. “With so many factors influencing land use in other nations, it’s impossible to show that biofuel crops are responsible. If the concept remains in EPA’s final rule, I’m relatively confident we have the votes to say no and overturn that.”

Finally, check out a Reuters commentary by Noam Ross last week on “Why the Ethanol Debate Isn’t Helping Anyone.” He points out, “The crux of the problem is not in how we measure the impact of ethanol, it is that developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops. Ethanol is just one of the pressures that speed the disastrous destruction of these forests.” Ross suggests that the ethanol industry become engaged in finding solutions “to reduce the pressure to clear land for agriculture by lobbying for global forest protection and working with partners in the agricultural industry to support technology transfer to the rural poor.”

This is what we need – a rational approach that involves helping the world produce food and fuel more efficiently and sustainably, instead of quibbling about how to measure something irrational.