Photo: tlindenbaum(flickr)

Ethanol is traditionally used as an additive to fuel, but these days it's adding to something else: the global food crisis.

Most U.S. ethanol is made from corn, the kind used mostly to make high fructose corn syrup and feed for cattle, chicken and pigs. But it seems a little backwards to devote farmland for fuel when 850 million people go hungry each year, according to the UN, a number expected to increase by 100 million in the next year.

Ethanol’s supporters say its environmental, economic and strategic benefits outweigh any link to higher food prices. The National Corn Growers Association claims greenhouse gases could be reduced by 20 percent if we used 15 billion gallons of ethanol in our cars.

As an example of its economic advantages, The Ethanol Factbook reported that:

A 40 million gallon per year ethanol plant will cost about $60 million to build, expand the economic base for the local economy by $110 million, generate an additional $19.6 million in household income, improve the tax revenue for the state and local governments by $1.2 million, and create nearly 700 permanent jobs.

Ethanol also has the potential to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

Moreover, many supporters of ethanol claim that there is a very low correlation between higher food prices and expanded ethanol production. “We think that there are enough elements in current commodity markets that resulted in very high prices for cereals and oilseeds and even they would have happened without this hike in biofuel production," says Loek Boonekamp, a top official for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Skeptics of ethanol say there’s not enough research to prove ethanol is beneficial in the long term, that it is fueling increased food prices, and that ethanol-based corn subsidies help only a select few.

Environmental benefits? Two independent scientists looked at the footprint of biofuels, and found that the way they’re produced creates more harm than good to the environment.

The latest World Bank assessment on rising food prices found that, “Almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for biofuels production in the U.S.” The New York Times reported that, “Work by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington suggests that biofuel production accounts for a quarter to a third of the recent increase in global commodity prices.”

What’s clear is that ethanol is coming under fire — even here in the U.S. — as food prices climb higher. According to the L.A. Times, “Some analysts believe the rapid increase in the use of corn to make ethanol has left the nation with little room to maneuver through weather-related disasters in the Midwest.”

Economist Jeffery Sachs argues we should redouble scientific efforts to grow biofuels on land that’s not suitable for growing food, but that we should end our “misguided” corn-to-ethanol subsidies. “Farmers hardly need them given world demand for food and feed grains.”

Regardless of the arguments for and against, ending ethanol subsidies may not provide the immediate assistance that UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon is looking for to solve the world’s food crisis. It would take time for farmers to convert their fields. Factor in growing time, and the impact might not be felt for several seasons.

But some experts say the conversions would take immediate pressure off food prices. At the very least, this is a great opportunity for the U.S. government to show that they are concerned about the world's growing hunger.