Gas tank vs. dinner table: Impact of biofuels on global hunger debated at U.N. summit

Outside the U.N. emergency summit on food here today, protesters dressed as ears of corn. Inside, Bush administration officials found themselves on the defensive on a wide range of U.S. policies, from biofuel production to genetic engineering and subsidies.

Delegates clashed during the second day of the three-day meeting on how much blame can be assigned to biofuels for the meteoric rise in food prices. The U.S. is an enthusiastic supporter of robust and heavily subsidized biofuel industry, allocating about a quarter of its corn crop to the lucrative development of ethanol.

But other nations and numerous aid agencies contend that too much food is ending up in fuel tanks and not on dinner tables, deepening a growing threat of global starvation.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Edward T. Schafer, leading the U.S. delegation, emerged from a series of side meetings and acknowledged that a struggle was under way among nations to reach compromise language on the issue.

Finding consensus on biofuels, which are made from corn, sugar cane, palm oil and other foodstuffs, had been one of the goals outlined by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in opening the summit here at the headquarters of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. Opponents and supporters diverge wildly on the pros and cons of biofuels and how harmful they may or may not be.

Schafer maintains that bumper crops in the U.S. mean that there’s plenty of corn for both eating and filling tanks. He says the shift to biofuels accounts for no more than 3% of the hike in prices of commodities, which in some cases have doubled in recent years.

Several U.N. agencies, relief groups and the International Monetary Fund, however, say as much as 30% of the increase could be blamed on biofuels.

“Even 1% represents hardship for 16 million people,” said Madelon Meijer, agricultural policy adviser for the British aid agency Oxfam. “Three percent already plunges a lot more people into poverty.”

Oxfam was one of several groups staging demonstrations outside the conference, with people dressed as corn in symbolic tugs-of-war between the hungry and those needing fuel. Oxfam argues that the amount of grain required to produce enough ethanol to fill the tank of an SUV could feed a human being for a year.

Biofuels were once hailed as an alternative to dirty fossil fuels that could liberate the U.S. and other countries from dependence on oil. But a steadily growing body of experts and others is raising questions about the efficiency of biofuels and claims that ethanol production is usurping arable land that should be used for foods or left as oxygen-enhancing forests, wetlands and natural habitats.

Another alternative, the so-called second-generation biofuels, has emerged. These are fuels made from non-food substances such as grasses. However, they have not been fully studied and raise other concerns.

“We are all re-evaluating our policies and technologies … and hope to move as quickly to second generation fuels as possible,” Henrietta Fore, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and a member of the delegation, said in a briefing with a small group of reporters.

At a closed-door session today, Schafer also cited second-generation fuels to deflect criticism over U.S. policy, according to officials who were present.

“I didn’t hear anyone say that demand for biofuels was … not part of the equation,” said Hafez Ghanem, FAO assistant director general. “People came up with different figures, of how much to blame this or that cause. We all do agree that we are not facing a transitive problem; this is a problem that will be here for a while.”

The shift to biofuels, everyone here agrees, is only one cause of rocketing food prices. Other factors, all converging disastrously at the same time, include high fuel costs, speculation, droughts and floods, and changing diets that spawn greater demand.

American officials are also using the summit to promote genetic engineering as a way to boost food production, increase crop yields, create drought-resistant strains and fight diseases such as stem rust in wheat. But several European countries adamantly oppose genetically modified foods and have enacted bans on its use. U.S. officials said they will effectively go around the Europeans and direct to developing nations who can benefit from the technology.

“We have a crisis of food availability and prices … and this is a tool we can turn to,” said Fore, the USAID administrator. She called on opponents to “take a fresh look” at a time that “too many people are hungry.”

 wilkinson@latimes.com