It wasn’t all that long ago that biofuel had everyone’s motor running. In just December of last year, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a bipartisan effort to reduce harmful emissions and relieve dependence on foreign oil through the production of renewable fuels. The energy bill mandates that fuel producers use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2008 – almost 5 times the amount that is used today.  The 2008 Presidential candidates weren’t shy to express their affection for biofuels, especially in the months prior to the Iowa Caucus, in a state where Corn is King. Barack Obama stated that ethanol is “one of the biggest success stories in American manufacturing” at the opening of an ethanol plant in Iowa last August. Hillary Clinton voiced her support for biofuels in Iowa as well last November, asserting that “renewables like biodiesel can be the fuel for a brighter future.” Not to be outdone, John McCain joked at the CNN Republican presidential debate last October that he has “a glass of ethanol each morning before breakfast.”

            But it seems McCain and other GOP Senators may have choked on their morning cup of power panacea when they realized just how much their breakfast sausage cost. Last Friday, Sen. McCain and 32 other Republican Senators wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, urging the agency to scale back mandates for increased biofuel production in light of rising food and livestock feed prices. McCain and his fellow Republicans contend that as an increasingly larger percentage of corn harvests are diverted for ethanol production, corn becomes rarer and more costly – both for human consumption and animal feed. In their letter to the EPA, the GOP Senators argue "although many factors may contribute to high food costs, food-to-fuel mandates are the only factors that can be reconsidered in light of current circumstances. American families are feeling the strain of these food-to-fuel mandates in the grocery aisle and are growing concerned about the emerging environmental concerns of growing corn-based ethanol."  

           For many former biofuel supporters who now favor scaling back production – the road to hell is paved with good intentions. “At first glance, biodiesel takes the issue of our foreign reliance for fuel head on: it replaces petroleum - a resource of which we have a limited supply, which other often unstable countries have a high supply, and replaces it with corn- a resource which we currently produce in large quantities, and based on our size and climate, could produce more of,” said Maggie Draughon, a 23-year-old financial planner at JP Morgan Chase in Wilmington, Delaware. “How wonderful would it be if every time I shelled out 3.70 a gallon to fill up my SUV it was going to the farmers of America rather than Iraq or the Middle East?”

            Although biofuel production is well intended, Maggie fears that in an imperfect system it may compromise Americans’ ability to put food on the table – literally. “In a free market, Americans have a limitless hunger for energy – which causes an increase in food price. Why would a farmer sell his or her corn or other crop for $1 when the energy companies will pay $100? I also fear that this will inevitably detriment the environment through deforestation. It wouldn’t be irrational for Americans to say, ‘Gee honey, that forest sure is nice but if we slap some corn back there we could send our kid to college.’”

            However, biofuel advocates and others are not fully convinced that ethanol and biodiesel production are the driving forces behind the spike in food prices. In a press hearing at the White House on international food aid with the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Ed Lazear, the chairman stated that although global food prices have risen dramatically, the negative effects of ethanol production have mostly been limited to corn, which has increased in price by 33% in the past year. Because corn only constitutes 30% of all grain, and grain is only 20% of all food, ethanol accounts for somewhere between 2 and 3 percent of the overall increase in global food prices.

            Richard Wilkins, President of the Mid-Atlantic Soybean Association, contends that Americans have it pretty good when it comes to grocery shopping. “The American consumer is still very well off. The average person spends less of their income on food than on income taxes. 30 years ago, the average American spent 18% of their income on food – which then was the lowest amount spent per capita of any country in the world. Today the average American is spending 12% – which is still the lowest of any country.”

            Many farmers and economists argue that rather than ethanol and biodiesel production, the rising price of oil has been the most significant contribution to increased food prices. As petroleum prices skyrocket and crude oil reaches $124 a barrel, food crops are becoming more and more expensive to harvest and transport. Richard Wilkins, who owns a soy and corn farm straddling Kent and Sussex counties in Delaware, maintains that the price of fuel is greater than the cost of raising the crops. “The major reason for increases in food prices is the portion of the food cost relating to transportation, harvesting, and storage…the energy cost and fuel cost of transporting food products is a much more substantial factor to the increase in food costs than the effects of biofuel production.”

            It is the comparison with oil that attracted many to the idea of biofuel in the first place. In addition to providing greater energy independence from foreign oil, biofuel is widely considered to be a cleaner, renewable motor fuel alternative to petroleum. The U.S. Department of Energy has found that the burning of biodiesel – as compared to petroleum diesel – results in a 78.5% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. For some like Greg Lambert, a 24-year-old process engineer from Bear, Delaware, the environmental benefits of biodiesel are too great to ignore. “I believe that biodiesel is great for the future. It combusts without leaving the sulfur bi-product that is found in much of No. 2 Diesel, while only sacrificing around 7% of the power.” Greg favors biodiesel over corn ethanol for its superior versatility and utilization, and is adjusting his car engine to run on grease biodiesel. “People must remember that biodiesel can be made from many different feed stocks – many of which are free and would have no effect on food prices. Using soy for the feed stock is the simplest, but it does come at a cost. Biodiesel rendered from used cooking oil can be produced for less than $1 a gallon.”

            Jen Kim, a 22-year-old Senior at the University of Delaware, has a greater appreciation for alternative fuels after working for a biodiesel company, and doubts whether biofuel production is fully responsible for increased food prices. “Alternative fuel options are not the greatest reason for the rise in food like corn and soy. These fuels will be the future because oil is limited, whether we like to admit it or not. I worked for a biodiesel company so I learned firsthand how much it can help in many different ways. You can make biodiesel not only from crops, but also from things like leftover oils. A lot of restaurants in town that are advocates for biodiesel give away their used oil like after cooking so people can make biodiesel and other alternative fuels.”