Print
Comment
Email
RSS
Twitter
Corn Growers Lobby With Snark
Corn Growers Lobby With Snark
By Dan Mitchell
Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 - 12:54pm
For an issue advocate trying to win the hearts and minds of a skeptical public and of (some) skeptical lawmakers, "Cindy," who blogs for the National Corn Growers Association, sure comes off as arrogant and dismissive in her latest post about ethanol.
"The usual suspects are at it again," Cindy begins, going on to describe a set of letters sent to senators last week asking for "scientific integrity" in formulating ethanol policy.
This is an old tactic, characterizing an opinion as somehow bad because it's being repeated by the same people who had previously expressed it. It theoretically makes the opinion sound sinister, or easily written off, coming as it does from the same old people. But of course there's nothing particularly sinister about opposition to ethanol coming from groups like the Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council, or various food and grocery lobbying groups.
Cindy called out the group for pursuing its own interests, as if this, too, were somehow wrong. (The environmental groups and food companies were joined in the letters by the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, which might be what really set Cindy off. That group, of course, would rather you buy more gasoline and less ethanol.)
The particular subject at hand is a debate over how to account for ethanol (and the deforestation it causes) in climate change legislation.
Cindy, though, focused on the mere fact that the letters was written and who wrote it—the usual suspects. The news release about the letter, she said, "includes a couple of choice quotes."
Recent Daily Bread Posts
-
Dan MitchellNovember 20, 2009
-
Dan MitchellNovember 19, 2009
-
Dan MitchellNovember 18, 2009
-
Dan MitchellNovember 17, 2009
-
Dan MitchellNovember 16, 2009
Comments
anti ethanol faction
Corn farmers have done a good job overall of making their case and it has been done largely by separating the real peer reviewed science from reputable sources and redundant studies vs. the junk pseudo-science from less than credible sources. Farmers are trying to make sure something as simple as real world data on the amount of corn produced and how it is produced gets included in various studies. More often than not outdated information in being used. The land use (ethanol deforestation debate) offers a perfect example. There is little or no connection between growing ethanol use and deforestation in South America. Corn productivity increases in the U.S. are easily keeping up with demand from all sources. Rainforest is being cut down by poor folks who need the income from the wood, and by mining and logging interest who think they need bigger profits. Although opposition folks may not be sinister they are transparent in their motives. Grocery manufacturers, Big Oil, Restaurant owners want the cheapest corn possible and seem to be prepared to use any methods to acheive that end. Corn prices are highly competitive right now and supplies are abundant. Has anyone seen grocery or restaurant prices drop? Environmental groups on the other hand want a utopian environment and don't seem to be content with the rapid inprovements being make in agriculture every day. There needs to be some balance on how quickly we change and how we change or we are liable to regulate our way into an empty pantry. No profits, no farmers, no food! Not sure I want to head there.
Mark
I assume the commenter is Mark Lambert, who is the director of communications for the NCGA. He makes a few valid points for his side of the argument -- something I thought was entirely lacking in Cindy's blog post, which seemed like just a slam for the sake of it. But also, that post was based on an idea that Mark here spells out explicitly: that by being "transparent in their motives," the anti-ethanol groups are somehow doing something wrong. I'd say transaparency is a good thing. I don't think anyone believes that either the food or the petroleum industry is working for the benefit of all mankind.
There's a logical inconsistency as well: Mark says that corn supplies are abundant and prices are low, but also says the food and grocery groups are lobbying against ethanol because they want prices to be lower. So, does that mean that ethanol *does* substantially affect prices? It's certain, at least, that the food lobbyists think so.
As for the environmental groups, well, sure, they want the environment to be as pristine as possible. And the corn growers want high corn prices and to create as many markets as they can for their product. You might call the environmentalists "utopian," or you might simply observe that they're pursuing their agenda to the hilt in the public sphere and in Washington, just as the corn growers are. Theoretically, the best argument wins. But -- and this was my point -- the best argument isn't "Oh, there go those goofy anti-ethanol people again."
I realize this was just one blog post amid a flurry of lobbying materials you and others have created and arguments you have constructed. It just struck me as unusually lame, is all.
Good Dialogue
Just to calrify, corn supplies are indeed abundant and another good crop is in the making. Thanks to technology and innovation corn growers are producing five times more corn than they did in the 1930's and yields are growing at a faster pace in recent years and doing it with less environmental impact. My logic wasn't inconsistent, but rather incomplete. Corn prices have dropped nearly 60 percent from the highs of 2008. Those histroic high prices were driven by numerous triggers including a dearth of specualtors seeking economic shelter in agriculture, thus artifically inflating prices. World demand for oil also skyrocketed thus raising farmers costs and the food industry's costs. The whole food and fuel scare tactic was a sham. The Grocery Manufacturers Association even noted ethanol/corn was only a part of increased corn prices, but they considered farmers an easy mark that couldn't defend themselves. Higher corn prices increase animal feed and ingredient costs for food manufacturers, but pass through to retail prices at a rate less than 10 percent of the corn price change. Given that foods using corn as an ingredient make up less than a third of retail food spending, overall retail food prices would rise less than 1 percentage point per year above the normal rate of food price inflation when corn prices increase by 50 percent. Nearly all the recent growth in demand for corn from ethanol has been met by the aforementioned increased yields. It is far more complicated than food vs. fuel. A few things to ponder: Corn prices resided in the $2 range for 25 years. What other business could sustain this? Farmers are still dealing with the consequences of the brief spike in corn prices. Although corn prices dropped, the costs of inputs from seed to fertilizer to land leases have all stayed high. Oh, and even with lower corn prices there has not been a corresponding drop in food prices. This kind of give and take is what blogging should be about. I appreciate the dialgoue. And yes, I am Mark Lambert who works for National Corn Growers Association, however, not as Communications Director.