As is the case with any change that effects many, easy solutions or culprits are sought. In the food and fuel debate, it seems there are no easy solutions.
Higher fuel prices affect everything, from fuel to clothing to any goods your buy. The unstable nature of oil supplies and the record high prices have made renewable alternative fuels like ethanol and biodiesel more viable.
Some scientists are calling for a moratorium on biofuels expansion, citing the predicted shortage of food worldwide. They say that halting the use of food-based biofuels, such as ethanol, would cut corn prices by 20 percent. The United States is the world's largest producer of biofuels.
A World Bank study has estimated that corn prices "rose by over 60 percent from 2005-07, largely because of the U.S. ethanol program" combined with market forces. The same proponents of a moratorium also admit that there are many issues causing the current food crisis, especially market forces and speculation.
Where is the proper balance between food and energy security?
The scientists that are advising a moratorium on biofuel development are proponents of using non-food crops like switchgrass for ethanol. That's all fine and good, but switchgrass production and conversion is currently where ethanol was a decade or so ago.
It's a no-win situation. If ethanol and biodiesel production are scaled back and prices go down, consumers and farmers won't necessarily see a benefit. The high grain prices are offset by high fuel and fertilizer costs. Finding a way to deal with the speculators is the only viable long term solution to both problems.
We all know that if a true free market is allowed to play out, the farmers in the United States will continually produce enough crops to meet demands. But when much of the price run up in grain and fuel markets are driven by investors, how can changing where the crops and fuel are used help anyone?

