U.N. Says Biofuel Subsidies Raise Food Bill and Hunger

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: October 7, 2008

A United Nations food agency called on Tuesday for a review of biofuel subsidies and policies, noting that they had contributed significantly to rising food prices and the hunger in poor countries.

With policies and subsidies to encourage biofuel production in place in much of the developed world, farmers often find it more profitable to plants crops for fuel than for food, a shift that has helped lead to global food shortages.

Current policies should be “urgently reviewed in order to preserve the goal of world food security, protect poor farmers, promote broad-based rural development and ensure environmental sustainability,” said a report released here on Tuesday by Jacques Diouf, the executive director of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

In a devastating assessment released this summer, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that government support of biofuel production in member countries was hugely expensive and that it “had a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security.” It did have “a significant impact on world crop prices” by helping to raise them.

“National governments should cease to create new mandates for biofuels and investigate ways to phase them out,” the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded in its report. The organization includes European countries, the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia.

But a host of studies in the past year concluded that the rush to biofuels had some disastrous, if unintended, consequences for food security and the environment. Less food is available to eat in poor countries, global grain prices have skyrocketed and precious forests have been lost as farmers have created fields to join the biofuel boom, the studies said.

Worse still, specialists say, so much energy is required to convert many plants into fuel that the process does not result in a savings of carbon emissions. The O.E.C.D.’s report said only two food-based fuels were clearly environmentally better than fossil fuels when considering the entire “life cycle” of their production: used cooking oil and sugar cane from Brazil. Sugar cane is far easier to convert to biofuel than most other crops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/world/europe/08italy.html?ref=science