Producing fuel from corn, also known as ethanol, is an alternative to using fossil fuels, but what is the actual cost of producing this fuel when all the different aspects are considered? One of the biggest costs involved ethanol production is the fuel versus food dilemma that has been raging globally. Many third world countries accuse the United States of using corn to produce fuel at the expense of worldwide hunger and these countries add that the use of corn to make ethanol raises food prices. Much research has been conducted on these and other factors, and the fact is that rising oil and fuel prices have a much greater impact on food prices than any corn shortage due to an increased use of corn as a source of biofuel. It is a myth that there is any food shortage in the world due to this factor, and most of the corn that is supplied to other countries is used as feed for animals such as cows and not for human consumption. Other factors that may affect food prices include the increase in cost of fertilizers, pesticides, and other costs associated with growing, processing, packaging, and transporting food.

Higher transportation costs mean that it costs more to get food to store shelves, and food prices have gone up based on this factor alone. If it were due simply to the fact that corn prices have risen because some corn is being diverted to the production of ethanol, food, which does not require corn for production, would not be affected. Instead, every food item that is available at local grocery stores has gone up significantly. This would not happen if there were a cheap and reliable source of fuel available, a situation where food prices would drop.

There is also the argument that the production of ethanol from corn directly causes hunger in third world countries. This speculation is also not true. One of the leading government officials in India has stated that the United States has a duty to ship any extra corn to third world countries at a low price, instead of using it for the production of ethanol, but this argument does not hold. Most consumable food sent as aid does not go to third world countries, and what does is in the form of feed for livestock, food that is not intended for human consumption. There is plenty of food grown in the world to feed the entire planet, and the cause of hunger and lack of food in many areas is due in part to crops that are grown and immediately sold instead of being used locally, and also in part because of transportation problems in getting available food to the people who need it the most.

The true cost of producing ethanol must take into consideration the limited amount of resources available in the world, but biofuels made from corn, like ethanol, are not responsible for higher food costs or for hunger in third world countries where food is scarce. There are alternative biomass sources that can be used to make cellulosic ethanol, and many of these plants and other sources are not included in food crops because they have no food value for humans or livestock. Plants like switchgrass and other weeds can be used instead, and so can agricultural wastes.

Ethanol is an alternative source of energy that is renewable, but harmful emissions are not reduced as much as they are with cellulosic ethanol. Ethanol is a smarter choice when compared to using fossil fuels, but there are even better alternatives that can be used so there is absolutely no concern about a food versus fuel dilemma at all.