Food vs fuel is corny

The vision for the bioeconomy relies on the creation of multiple product streams from agricultural biomass -- separating the sugars, oils, protein and bran and reutilizing waste streams. The main challenges to building this bioeconomy are creating new market supply and value chains for biomass and directing capital to building the effort.

The food vs fuel debate not only mischaracterizes the supply chain for agricultural biomass -- by encouraging people to believe that corn can only be used one way or another -- but worse, discourages capital investment in building the bioeconomy.

A waiver of the RFS is unlikely to provide relief from this year’s drought. But it could extend by several years the drought in investment capital for new technologies such as advanced biofuels.

I'm afraid that if we don't keep experimenting, learning, and exploring all the alternative energies (biofuels, wind, solar, etc.), we will lose our position as the world leader in progressive thinking and technology. We are a creative, bold nation of people from many different backgrounds, and as addicting as oil has been, we are GOOD at change. GOOD at trailblazing. I'm afraid the cry by many industries to pull back on ethanol, whether out of fear or logic, is a sign that we are losing that trailblazing spirit. I hope we can be the ones to explore the future of energy, as messy and tricky as it may be.

To benefit everyone a bio-economy should be global. The only way to secure stable food prices is through investments in sustainable agriculture. That will enable farmers in developing countries to run an economically viable business, increase food security and reduce poverty. The current situation only shows that the world is too reliant on US agricultural production.

If people think low food prices are a good thing for poor people in developing countries they should think again. Fact is that 75% of people in the developing world live in rural areas. Some 86% depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Agricultural production is important for food security because it is the main source of income.

For years developed countries have been blamed for undermining the business of farmers in developing countries by dumping artificially cheap food on the world market by means of export subsidies, thereby keeping food price low and destroying agriculture in developing countries. So my opinion is clearly that a bio-economy would increase the value of agricultural products and enable farmers all over the world to develop an economically sustainable business and help secure food supply to everyone.

On another note, it is depistating to read when people believe scrapping a biofuel mandate will change things. The issue is far more complicated than the apparent simple and intuitive nature of the problem. Let me give an example: Clean Star Mozambique is a sustainable venture in Mozambique which integrates food and biofuels production. It works with smallhold farmers and is an example of how investments in agriculture in developing countries can increase availability and accessibility of food. In this case it is made possible through the simultanous production of biofuels.

Dougal, thank you for an interesting article - I agree entirely. In addition to what has already be written I think we need to have a discussion with FAO and Ag ministers about increased investments in agriculture outside in the US, and in particular in Africa. Besides from cultivation of more land we also need to invest more in yield improvements and more climate-change-savvy practices and crops. This holds a far bigger potential for the poor and starving in Africa rather than the current pointing-fingers exercise.

With the drought in the US, the cost of food for people worldwide will be going up, including meat from animals fed corn. The hit will not come till later this year, early next. With oil prices relatively low, this is a time to cut back on ethanol production so that everyone can have corn at reasonable prices while still giving farmers a nice profit.

Dr. Thomas A. Lumpkin
Director General
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT--www.cimmyt.org)

To use biomass for energy&fuels is extremly inefficient. If you compare solar - electric with corn - bioethanol, the solar - electric system is more than 50 times more efficient. That cannot be overseen. Biomass getting more and more expensive, solar and wind cheaper ann cheaper. We should use the limited biomass, with is not used for food & feed only with the highest added value (bio-based chemicals and plastics) and NOT for low value energy & fuels. More background information at www.bio-based.eu/policy

Michael Carus, CEO nova-Institute, Germany

Dougal writes "Harnessing our planet's biological resources will revolutionise the way we live, ushering in a truly green revolution". I couldn't agree more. That is why I am pleased to work at a company that sees the opportunity. DSM partnered with POET to try to unlock the cellulosic biofuel opportunity. Wouldn't it be great to convert waste cellulosic materials to fuel. In addition, during the past couple of years, DSM has acquired several technologies using biotechnology manufacturing processes to produce nutrients essential for life - the omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), lutein and zeaxanthin. All three of these nutrients must be obtained from the diet and are required to develop brain and eye. Current practices are to harvest fish from the ocean to obtain fish oils and to grow fields of marigolds to obtain lutein. With emerging technologies it is possible to grow high-yield crops and use efficient biotechnologies to generate these essential nutrients. I believe this is our sustainable future if we hope to feed billions of people.

Dear Dougal,

Let me start to give you praise by confirming - as a representative of one of the companies involved in making advanced biofuels from cellulose - your statement about the reality of the developments to move away from non-renewable to renewable resources. As you point out in your article, this isn’t science fiction anymore, although it will take a couple of decades to make the full shift. It’s important to realize that the driving legislation to make this happen in the USA first, the Renewable Fuel Standard, is a visionary policy, put in place with bi-partisan support, supporting a worthy cause with a long-term reach.

The RFS works and its promise for cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels has attracted private investments that are creating thousands of jobs in the USA today. It would be a mistake to change a multi-year policy because we have one year of limited rain. As indicated by Paul above, waiving (parts of) the RFS for this year, might dry up funding for new projects in advanced biofuels for a much longer period of time. Investments that are needed to build up this industry are substantial, and will primarily be encouraged by stability of policy, providing a level of certainty on off-take and therefore protection to a new value chain that requires some time to be optimized in order to be able to compete in full with the existing fossil fuel market.

As Annegrethe points out, this development will impact the value of agricultural commodities, since they get additional applications as a renewable resource for chemicals production (for fuels, or as building blocks for materials). A new balance will have to develop, and it is likely that that balance will be found at a higher general price level. Other than many seem to think, increased value for agricultural commodities may well have a positive impact on the food availability in emerging economies like in Africa. Local farmers feel so much pressure of extremely cheap imports of these products from the USA, that local production and sales have become practically impossible. Let’s try to make people realize that this debate should not be on food versus fuel, but on food AND fuel.

Best Regards
Steve Hartig
VP Bioenergy
DSM

It’s important to note that the “Bioeconomy” refers to a variety of approaches to use biological means to meet our needs for food, fuel, medicine, materials, and management of our natural resources. Apart from the production of biofuel, from a food company’s perspective, there could be many other positive applications, including the potential to use new biotechnology applications to lower the sugar, saturated fat and sodium content of food and beverage products for consumers. Bio-fortification can help to deliver essential micronutrients through staple foods. Technologies that produce food with a smaller ecological footprint, such as synthesized meat or plants that grow in saline water, are undergoing rapid development. The future could see crop varietals optimized for growth in urban rooftop gardens or vertical gardens, or fast-growing fish species such as cobia for aquaculture. Opportunities exist to increase the affordability of foods and beverages produced using new technologies, allowing consumers greater access to healthy options. The field of bio-engineering for the production of medicines or vaccines is making several advances. And finally, the potential to develop renewable or bio-degradable packaging is of great importance in a rapidly urbanizing world.

Careful policy choices need to be made to avoid negative consequences. The comments above shine a spotlight on the potential to displace food production and cause food prices to rise or fluctuate, which can drive more people into hunger. Judicious land use, policies and improvement of renewable energy technologies should ensure that fuel production is not pitted against food production. The “bio-engineering” of food crops may still raise questions about food safety and environmental impact that need to be addressed. And, given that one of the biggest challenges facing the world is how to feed 9 billion people with the resources available to us, we must be careful not to divert much needed agricultural research and funding away from food production and ensure that producing both food and fuel do not compete with one another.

Just letting people know that we (Microbiogen) have been working on our food and fuel biorefinery now for over ten years. In our biorefinery, we refine indedible plant materials into three products; fuel ethanol, green coal and high protein animal feed. By producing animal feed from indedible plant materials, our technology actually increases the food supply while producing fuel ethanol. Even if energy crops are planted, displacing food crops, our process produces animal feed from the crop thus providing human food.

The current drought in the U.S. and its ensued potential impact on food vs. fuel production, availability, and prices, has sparked and renewed interest in the food vs. fuel debate. But is this debate a real one? By that, I mean, is there a real - an informed -debate on this issue?

All that has prevailed on this issue thus far are anecdotal evidence and statement of opinions. There clearly lacks quantifiable evidence on the existence of trade-offs between food and fuel. For instance, are there any models or economic analytical tools that enable us to examine the economic impact of the potential trade-offs that exist from allocating a percentage of say corn production to fuel.

This could be immensely useful in guiding policy decisions and moving from anecdotal to evidence-based discussions. Unless such analytical tools exist, we can't really say that the impact of allocating x percentage of corn to fuel prodution would be worse on poor households than if all the corn produced was used for food/feed. One could ponder over whether diverting the produced corn to fuel production would be more beneficial to the poor by preventing a huge increase in fuel prices, which would have a wider and more severe impact on the prices of more goods consumed by the poor than a mere increase in the price of corn, corn products, and poultry/livestock products.

Regards,
Oumou

With more sophisticated technology, it is now easier than ever to turn plants, trees, crops, and residual animal waste into useful biomass. The ensuing products may replace products based on non-renewable materials. Today, most of such bio-based production is directed towards traditional products like fuel, but the percentage of entirely new products – for example pharmaceuticals and bio-plastics – is growing.

Much of the demand for biomass results from an incentive policy intended to promote renewable energy. As mentioned by Dougal, the US Renewable Fuels Standard and, in Europe, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) play key roles. Both impose quantitative targets and allow national governments to introduce tax measures. This implies the creation of an artificial market for biomass intended for energy purposes, largely through energy crops.
The concerns about the ecological and social impacts of such crops are increasing. Encouraging the demand for biomass may increase pressure on farmland, which in turn can have a negative impact on global food production and biodiversity. In addition, biomass cultivation can lead to social problems, for example poor working conditions on the plantation or land use without the original users’ consent.

A few years ago, the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was cited as one of the most important reasons for using “green” raw materials. At the moment, however, it appears that – when assessed across the entire supply chain – bio-based energy products have far fewer GHG benefits than originally anticipated. This is especially the case if these products are the result of large-scale cultivation, and if the indirect effects, for example of indirect land use change (ILUC), are taken into account. In the case of many crops, the GHG balance is in fact negative when compared with fossil fuels.

The sustainable use of biomass is far from certain, both in quantitative and qualitative terms. This is no reason to disqualify biomass entirely, but we must encourage the most rational use of it. This implies, for example, the development of high-value chemical and material products, rather than placing the emphasis on bulk products like fuel. Such an approach needs to be accompanied by voluntary standards at a national and international levels to avoid unfair competition and unsustainable use of biofuels.

In December 2010 the Dutch Social and Economic Council, one of the highest policy advisory bodies of the Dutch government, adopted the report "More chemistry between green and growth". It formulates a strategy to introduce biomass into economic processes in a sustainable and competitive manner by introducing a responsible incentive policy for renewable energy; by taking a comprehensive approach to sustainable resource supply chains; and by supporting energy and food production in developing countries.

Dear Dougal,

Brilliant and inspirational outlook of the Global bio-economy and the innovation and impact will be making.

My belief is we need a generation of young leaders ( scientists, policy makers, company and organisation leaders, bio-entrepreneurs) to critically brainstorm, analyse and start panning how they intend to collaborate resources and knowledge.

The current generation, under this economic climate, is often disengaged from pressing current global biotechnology issues and too self-motivated to climb the next step of the career ladder.

We need challenging, networked, knowledgeable and visionary leaders of tomorrow to ensure Biotechnology adds to solutions of the problems of the future.

Watch out for a post along the lines in the same blog network.

Ipshita Mandal
PhD candidate, University of Cambridge
Founder and President, Global Biotech Revolution