On January 29, Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been researching the corn ethanol issue for more than two decades, published another report on the costs of producing motor fuel from grain. His article, which has seven co-authors, appeared in the journal Human Ecology. In the article, “Food Versus Biofuels: Environmental and Economic Costs,” Pimentel and his fellow researchers found that “using food and feed crops for ethanol production has brought increases in the prices of US beef, chicken, pork, eggs, breads, cereals, and milk of 10 percent to 20 percent.” It concludes “Using food crops to produce ethanol raises major nutritional and ethical concerns. Nearly 60 percent of humans in the world are currently malnourished, so the need for grains and other basic foods is critical….Growing crops for biofuel not only ignores the need to reduce natural resource consumption, but exacerbates the problem of malnourishment worldwide by turning food grain into biofuel.”

While it’s true that other factors have helped inflate food prices, including rising energy prices and increased grain demand in other countries, it’s also abundantly obvious that the corn ethanol industry has had an effect on food prices. The reason is obvious: in 2008, some 4.1 billion bushels of corn – fully one-third of the US crop – was used to make motor fuel. And the results are being seen in the supermarket.

In mid-January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2008, food prices jumped by nearly 6 percent. That comes on the heels of food price increases of 4.8 percent in 2007. Some agricultural economists are now predicting that food prices could increase by as much as 10 percent in 2009. Worse still, those increases are coming at the same time that the global economy is foundering and U.S. unemployment rates are soaring.

Pimentel’s report provides yet more ammunition for ethanol critics. And while the criticism is important, Tom Elam, an Indiana-based agricultural economist and a long-time critic of the ethanol industry, reminded me that data is easily obtainable that shows the level of distress in the industry. Ethanol Producer Magazine tracks the number of ethanol plants that have quit producing fuel. Its latest numbers show that 32 ethanol distilleries are now idled. The capacity of those plants is 2 billion gallons per year. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the US now has 12.3 billion gallons of ethanol production capacity. Thus, about 16.1 percent of all the ethanol capacity in the US has been idled due to high corn costs – which are, in part, a reflection of the ethanol industry’s own demand for grain – and relatively low gasoline prices.

During a brief telephone interview on Thursday, Pimentel told me that he continues to be amazed that Congress still supports the idea of corn ethanol. He is equally dismissive of the concept of cellulosic ethanol, a substance which, in theory, can profitably produce motor fuel from switchgrass, corn stubble, or other biomass. Although promoters have been pushing cellulosic ethanol for decades – and it is now being pushed hard by the Democrats -- Pimentel’s latest report estimates that the energy return on energy invested in cellulosic ethanol is minus 68 percent. (Pimentel puts the EROEI on corn ethanol at a negative 46 percent. Some of the most-widely cited reports on corn ethanol, particularly those done by the US Department of Agriculture show that corn ethanol has a slightly positive EROEI.) “It’s absolutely ridiculous,” says Pimentel. Congress and others who are promoting the idea “haven’t even done the most basic calculations about what it would mean to make cellulosic ethanol.”

When it comes to making fuel from biomass, he told me, “I wish that it did work. But I’m a scientist first and an agriculturalist second.”

Finally, Vilsack. Bloomberg reports that the former Iowa governor is talking with the EPA about increasing the blend levels above the 10 percent now allowed. In November, the EPA said it would require gasoline to contain 10.2 percent ethanol this year. But it appears that Vilsack wants to increase that amount even further regardless of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the vehicles on the road today are only emissions-certified to run on a 10 percent blend.

Neither the EPA nor Vilsack appear interested in thinking about how increased ethanol volumes in gasoline will affect air quality. Last year, William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents air pollution control authorities from 49 states and several territories, as well as local agencies from 165 metro areas around the country, told me that ethanol has had a negative effect on air quality and yet the EPA has chosen to ignore it. As Becker explains it, the issue is clear: “More ethanol means more air pollution. Period.”

And yet, more ethanol in gasoline is on the way.