The Tragic Abuse of Corn
From: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072005A.shtml
Wednesday 20 July 2005
The wheel it has circled, time without end,
Old life remembers, and welcomes the grain.
For the corn and the seed are one and the same,
That which has been, will be again.
-- from Demeter's Hymn by Lyn Hubert
They are exalted for a little while, but are gone and brought low; they are taken out of the way as all others, and cut
off as the tops of the ears of corn.
-- Job 24:6
It was one of those things that you can't quite believe is real. I was flipping through a magazine and saw an ad for a
stove that burns corn kernels. For heat. Corn is food, not fuel, I thought, but the ad assured me that "Corn is
replenished annually. It is a never-ending energy source, and thus is the new alternative fuel of choice."
Something about it felt very wrong to me. Burning food does not seem respectful. Especially when there are two billion
people in the world who don’t get enough to eat.
But it is more than that. Corn production uses tremendous amounts of fossil fuel for mechanized labor, irrigation,
drying, transport and fertilizer. I sincerely doubted that corn as a fuel could be renewable on a sustainable basis.
Almost one quarter of America’s farmland grows corn - maize. At nine billion bushels a year, it is our single largest
crop and uses vast amounts of water, pesticides and fertilizer. Erosion and toxic runoff from the fields pollute
waterways and kill fish in the Gulf of Mexico where a plume of pollution from the Mississippi Delta creates an
ever-expanding dead zone. Raising corn the way we do it today depletes the soil of nutrients and creates an addiction to
nitrogen fertilizer made from natural gas.
Since natural gas prices went up a few years ago, we are producing less and less fertilizer here and importing more of
it from the Persian Gulf. Now we must worry about food security as well as energy security.
Burning corn in a stove may seem bizarre, but it is no more bizarre than fermenting and distilling it into ethanol to
burn in our cars. As gas prices go up, people are looking to ethanol and other biofuels to substitute for oil.
Unfortunately, it is a bad bargain - one that is being encouraged by giant agribusiness firms like Archer Daniels
Midland and Monsanto that reap huge profits from corn and taxpayer’s wallets.
Corn is already America's most heavily subsidized crop, sucking up about $10 billion a year (according to OXFAM) along
with all that water and fertilizer. About 13 percent of the corn crop is now devoted to ethanol production, but that
would increase dramatically if the Energy Policy Act of 2005, now in a House-Senate conference committee, were to pass.
The Senate version of the energy bill would require US ethanol production to more than double - from 3.3 billion gallons
in 2004 to 8 billion gallons by 2012.
Subsidies hide the true monetary cost of production, but the big accounting scandal here is the energy accounting. A
study by Cornell ecologist David Pimentel and UC Berkeley engineer Tad Patzek found that when all the inputs to farming
and ethanol production are accounted for, ethanol uses 29 percent more fossil fuel energy to produce than it yields in
your gas tank.
This figure does not include the work to restore the soils and waterways degraded and polluted by industrial
agriculture. In a separate report, Patzek estimated that the energy cost of restoration is seven times the energy output
of the ethanol.
On the global warming front, Patzek found that the corn ethanol produced in 2004 would generate 11 million more tonnes
of CO2 than would be emitted by burning the equivalent amount of gasoline instead. The best way to combat global warming
would be to retire more farmland and help restore it to natural grasslands and forests, which are the most effective
sinks for carbon sequestration.
The energy bill title that increases ethanol production is called "Renewable Content of Motor Vehicle Fuel." It defines
"renewable fuel" as fuel that is produced from grain, starch, etc., that "is used to replace or reduce the quantity of
fossil fuel present in a fuel mixture used to operate a motor vehicle."
By this definition, ethanol is clearly not a renewable fuel. Not only does it not replace any of the fossil fuel used
to operate a motor vehicle, it actually increases the quantity of fossil fuel used because the ethanol embodies so much
fossil fuel in its production. We would use less fossil fuel and produce less greenhouse gas by burning the fossil fuel
directly in the motor vehicle.
John McClelland of the Corn Growers Association, and Michael Graboski of the Colorado School of Mines, have disputed a
previous analysis by Pimentel. They say Pimentel’s figures are outdated; corn output today is higher and energy inputs
are lower than they were a decade ago. But crop yields are subject to the whims of nature, and with global warming now
in the equation, who can say that yields won’t drastically decrease? Or that more irrigation and more energy won’t
suddenly be needed?
Last month, the UN reported that one in six countries face food shortages this year, mostly from drought brought on by
global warming. And it is not just Africa: Spain and Portugal have both applied to the UN for food assistance.
In any case, Pimentel’s new report with Patzek is based on current data and still reaches the same conclusion - ethanol
uses more energy than it yields. They say investments in solar energy and vehicle fuel efficiency are where we should
put our money.
One output that Pimentel and Patzek do not appear to account for is the leftover distiller’s mash that amounts to about
one third of the original corn weight and retains most of the oil, protein and micronutrients. This mash is suitable for
animal feed. This is helpful, but more than half of US corn production already goes into the meat industry, another
tragic industry that disrespects our fellow creatures, destroys land, and promotes an unhealthy, meat-heavy diet.
But the worst abuse of corn, to my mind, is the way the food industry has crammed High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) into
every possible food product. HCFS is an industrial product that was perfected in the 1970s and introduced into the food
system in the early 1980s. Almost immediately, Americans started putting on weight, with obesity doubling by 2000.
Food processors love HFCS because it is cheap (to them, as it is subsidized by our taxes) and it mixes easily. It also
helps baked goods brown evenly and prevents freezer burn. Consequently it ends up in just about every processed food
product on the market.
HFCS has made headlines for its use in soda and fruit juice. Combined with a large jump in soda consumption by
children, it is implicated in childhood obesity and skyrocketing rates of diabetes.
HFCS is not a natural product. Corn processors claim it is chemically identical to cane sugar except for an extra five
percent fructose over glucose content - ordinary cane sugar is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose. But
researchers at UC Davis and the University of Michigan found fructose turns to fat more readily than glucose and it
increases the level of triglycerides in the bloodstream.
HFCS may be only slightly more toxic to the body than cane sugar, but apparently that is all it takes to manufacture an
abysmal health crisis that is destroying children’s health. Last week, the Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI) petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put warning labels on soft drinks containing HFCS. The
industry response was predictable, harping on the rhetoric of "freedom" to attack the labeling proposal. "This is
nothing but another freedom-sucking proposal from CSPI," said the industry spokeswoman. "The nutrition nannies are at it
again."
About five percent of US corn production now goes into HFCS. To expand this market, producers are looking toward
Mexico, which just lost a WTO dispute over its attempt to protect its sugar cane production from dirt cheap HFCS.
Here our corn is being used as a weapon to subjugate the underdeveloped world, which relies heavily on income from
sugar cane. (Industry has done other terrible things to Mexico’s corn producers, the worst of which may be the genetic
pollution of the original strains of maize, developed over thousands of years and sacred to the Maya, but that is the
subject of another story.)
From where things stand today, it would be better to let the corn producers divert their product away from poor Mexico
and the sweetener market and into our gas tanks where it will do less harm than it does in our bodies.
Sooner or later we must face the fact that our agricultural production systems need a radical overhaul. With far fewer
inputs of fossil fuels and far less damage to the environment, organic agriculture that mimics natural ecosystems can
produce nearly as much food as industrialized agriculture. In that context, it might make sense to brew up a limited
amount of ethanol to run farm equipment and generators. The kind of change we need is not a revolution in technology,
but a revolution in our thinking that embraces the practice of sustainability.
To us, sustainability is just another word, but for millennia, the common man and woman lived it. Corn, as a generic
term for all kinds of grains, was life. The great round of the agricultural year set the meter of life as the baby seed
corn was coaxed to sprout, coddled to maturity and finally cut down and laid tenderly to rest in the granary, only to
rise again in the spring. In his classic work, The Golden Bough, James George Frazer documented the rich panoply of
ritual and festival celebrating the "corn mother" ("corn" being that suffused European peasant culture right up until
the 20th century. This pagan "earth worshipping" culture existed right alongside Christianity because no peasant could
afford to lose the blessing of the corn mother.
The ancient European tradition says that the corn mother, dressed in white, could be seen at midnight, flying over the
fields and fertilizing them. She would pass by the fields of any farmer who sinned and his corn would wither and die.
The farms of industrial agriculture are not sustainable. When the fossil fuels are gone, their corn will wither and
die.
If we still believed in the corn mother, and if we could hear her speak, I believe she would tell us to leave the soda
in the can and the SUV on the showroom floor. She would also recommend that we raise less corn and more hell.
*************
Kelpie Wilson is the t r u t h o u t environment editor. A veteran forest protection activist and mechanical engineer,
she writes from her solar-powered cabin in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwest Oregon. Her first novel, Primal Tears, is
forthcoming from North Atlantic Books in Fall 2005.