Corn and the Climate: Part I, Biofuels

After addressing the concerns that many people have regarding corn derivatives within our food, someone must notice that I failed to mention the climate. This is, after all, a blog started in order to address climate change and food policy within a class focused on climate change. Where does corn fit in there?



Ontario Corn, a company that represents approximately 21,000 corn producers, addresses some of the pros and cons of corn production in general. While they state that growing corn can help to absorb a large percentage of Ontario's carbon emissions, the processing currently used puts CO2 back into the environment, and often the emissions and processing neutralize any absorption benefits. To address this, they have suggested different methods of tillage that might help increase the absorption rate and reduce carbon emissions. However, there are bigger concerns to be addressed than just the way in which corn is grown and collected.



Biofuels: Corn as Fuel


As a fuel source, biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, derived from corn and other feedstocks, sound at first like a practical solution to some of our alternative energy needs. Corn is a sustainable, renewable resource, right? However, there are growing concerns about the use of food stores to produce fuel. Not only are there questions about land usage and the diverting of food to humans and animals*, but the ways in which large corn producers grow their crops may add indirectly to carbon emissions and do more harm than good. An article from The Boston Globe discusses policies currently being considered in regard to using biofuels:

A year ago, researchers from Princeton, Georgetown, Iowa State, and Woods Hole found that increased production of corn-based ethanol would devour forests and grasslands, and possibly double greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years.

Archer Daniels Midland claims to be the "leading producer" of both ethanol and biodiesel, and that these biofuels are "the only alternative transportation fuels available to consumers." That statement alone is telling of a greater political climate in which reliable alternative sources of transportation are halted or hindered by corporate interests. However, as ADM makes clear by their absence of further mention of such a situation, it is not something for which they are concerned. After all, a continued reliance on similar combustible engines means they can market their corn and other foodstocks in varied ways for greater profit.



To gain perspective from another leading corn producer in the United States, I looked to Cargill, whose web site bears a strong resemblance to ADM's, and gives even less insight into the underlying situation of biofuel production and creation. They only discuss what services they provide and in what regions, although their Latin American focus is suggestive of more than they openly address:

We are an investor in an entity that operates an ethanol dehydration facility in El Salvador with origination from Brazil. We distribute the anhydrous ethanol produced by this business. We also operate an ethanol terminal in Santos, Brazil, and two sugar cane mills and distilleries in Brazil.

Their European and United States listings talk about what they provide in terms of a product to those regions. With Latin America, they discuss what is produced. Without directly, or perhaps even consciously, acknowledging it, the inequity in the industry between producers of resources (some would say exploited regions) and consumers of an elite product in wealthier countries. One must consider not only the great expense of transporting these substances across oceans and continents, but also what type of destruction was done to the local ecology of the producers and the food resources for the people in those countries. On what land are they growing these crops? What did those crops displace?





(To be continued)

An Introduction to Corn

Almost ten years ago, I rented a room in a shared house. The house manager become a good friend, but he frequently railed against corn and corn producers, most specifically Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). My friend, as it turned out, had a fatal allergy to corn and any corn by-products. Because of this, he read every label, never ate out, and every breakfast and lunch were the same. Only his dinners and treats ever varied, and I often worked with him to find foods that did not have corn in them. We had to avoid corn, corn starch, modified food starch, xanthum gum, and of course, corn syrup (and its ugly cousin, high fructose corn syrup).



Thus, in seeking out this substance, I became as aware of the pervasiveness of this food in all things. Once a cherished substance, I began to find it suspect that it truly was in so many foods; and in living in that shared house, I watched as my friend's favorite snacks quickly were removed from his "OK" list. Cookies, it seemed, were especially problematic in this regard, for one day a cookie might have sugar as its sweetener, and then next, be produced with corn syrup instead.



The ads started coming a couple of years ago from the Corn Refiners Association:








There are two things that send up red flags for me. One, the woman in this video who speaks out against corn syrup has little more to say than, "You know what they say." Clearly CRA does not want to address the real concerns people have about a highly processed corn derivative in their foods. The second issue is the statement, "it's fine in moderation." That may be true, but how can anyone have moderate amounts of high fructose corn syrup when it's pervasive in almost everything we consume that is not a whole food (e.g. produce, dairy, rice, dried legumes, meat, etc.)? There's also the whole ambiguous term "natural" being used, which holds with it a host of trouble, and was not even a legally acceptable term for HFCS until 2008. Not only do manufacturers of HFCS send it through such a heavy refining process, natural does not always indicate good or healthy, despite the undertones of using such language. The other ads in the campaign seen here and , use the same language and formula. The agitator has nothing of value to back up any claim, and the term "in moderation" is repeated throughout. Any real discourse is shot down, and those who protest against HFCS are portrayed as ignorant, misled, or even crazy (not the eyes of the first woman in the ad shown above).



Who makes up the Corn Refiners Association? According to their website, their members include: Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Penford, National Starch, and Tate & Lyle, all of whom have something to lose of people start actively rejecting corn derivatives in their foods. Then again, some already have begun to do just that.



In 2007, PCC banned high fructose corn syrup from its stores. The European Union has banned its products, as well as many genetically modified foods (GMOs) from the United States. Even Florida legislators, led by Rep. Juan Zapata, attempted in 2006 to ban it from school cafeterias, but were talked out of it due to the high cost of healthier foods that did not contain HFCS.



If it's so bad for us, why do we have it at all? There are several reasons, one of them my friend was most focused on was the embargo on Cuban sugar, and his belief that a corporate conspiracy was set to keep that in tact. By driving the price of sugar up and the cost of corn syrup down, it's easier for food manufacturer's to make the same product at a reduced cost with higher profit. What motivations there have been for the embargo continue to be debated. However, when it comes to the practical uses of HFCS, The San Francisco Chronicle in a 2003 article titled "Sugar Coated: We're drowning in high fructose corn syrup" does explain that it began being added to our foods in the 1970's in part because:

Because high fructose corn syrup mixes easily, extends shelf-life and is as much as 20 percent cheaper than other sources of sugar, large-scale food manufacturers love it. It can help prevent freezer burn, so you'll find it on the labels of many frozen foods. It helps breads brown and keeps them soft, which is why hot dog buns and even English muffins hold unexpected amounts.

Fructose, and our increased intake of the substance over the last forty years is speculated by numerous sources to be the primary reason for the U.S. being considered the fattest nation in the world. There are a multitude of books on the subject most noteworthy, Fast Food Nation, Supersize Me, and Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World. As if that weren't enough, there is now evidence to support that high fructose corn syrup is and has been tainted with mercury all along!



Despite what the CRA and its corporate members would like you to believe, HFCS is not natural after going through such a heavy process, it is unhealthy for the body both causing issues for diabetics and causing our bodies to become resistant to leptin, one of the most important adipose derived hormones in the human body, which helps to regulate our metabolisms and generate essential tissues. There is no moderation when the majority of our packaged foods are coated in it (even certain whole grain breads and low fat yogurts), unless we can afford to select our foods from stores like PCC or cook all of our meals from scratch using whole foods.



Though the CRA ads for HFCS show a series of individuals who state, "you know what they say," most people who know about the dangers can cite at least some genuine concerns and often can back them up with unbiased studies. The following spoofs of the CRA ad campaign are evidence of the real voices of activists:





The above spoof gives a host of facts all stated succinctly and in response to the same park ad as the one linked above. It uses the couple's discussion over a popsicle, but offers a significant wealth of information to counter the dismissive tone offered by the Corn industry. Other spoofs (and there are many) include: a couple using a cigarette and tobacco in the same context as the CRA park ad, andcomediennes who tackle larger social issues with the same CRA lines of rebuttal.