i think it's very dangerous to lend credibility to World Bank studies. remember we had depressed prices for a looong time for commodities, driving farmers here and around the world off the land. ethanol was a "misguided" attempt to stimulate demand to get a fair price for farmers. is ethanol starving the world? no. industrial-petroleum dependent agriculture is. esp. when you ship food 1500 miles per way. in a box of cornflakes, you have maybe 4 cents worth of corn there. double that, and it's 8 cents. same with wheat in bread. the rest is all processing, transportation, marketing and agribusiness profits. i hate to be with George Bush on this one, but i am closer to him than i am to the ethanol-bashers (and ethanol in the US as distinct from agrofuels in Brazil and developing countries which drive indigenous farmers off the land...) higher commodity prices has had an impact--not the USDA 4%, but not the World Bank's 75%. but oil is still the majority of why we have high food prices and free trade policies that force countries to be dependent on foreign imports and globalized markets are the root of the problem. not ethanol! will the world bank ever release a study on the massive profits of Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and others profitting off the misery of millions who need to eat??

And maybe if Mexico weren't so dependent on corn imports and ADM, they wouldn't be exposed to volatile global markets for their food security. really shoudl not blame US farmers getting a fair price for Mexico's woes.

never mind farmers getting screwed even despite the higher prices due to the input/fuel costs.

you can see that by aligning with the ethanol bashing arguments, folks are aligning themselves with the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the factory farms, pork producers and coca-cola!!! this is a dangerous place to be and i believe by buying into World Bank arguments, we shift blame from the REAL bad guys to farmers finally able to make a decent living.

see this article:

THE HILL

Food, livestock groups push policies to reduce corn prices

By Jim Snyder

Posted: 07/07/08 06:15 PM [ET]

Livestock producers, soft drink makers and other parts of the food chain hurt by rising corn prices are urging the administration to provide some relief.

Their extensive lobbying push has focused on convincing the administration to do three things: allow farmers to plant more corn in acreage now set aside under a conservation program, waive a portion of the ethanol production mandate, and suspend a tariff that discourages the importation of ethanol made in Brazil from sugarcane.

The food-versus-fuel debate also continues to draw in other groups that aren't directly affected by the price of corn, which has traded recently at well over $7 a bushel.

Conservationists and sports enthusiasts, for example, are fighting the effort backed by chicken and hog producers to loosen the planting restrictions under the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to leave land fallow.

A trade group that represents ethanol producers in Brazil, meanwhile, has registered to lobby Congress for the first time and is paying for an advertising campaign promoting the repeal of a 54-cent tariff on sugarcane ethanol as a way to alleviate demand for corn for fuel.

Federal spending watchdogs have also signed on to a letter urging suspension of the tariff.

But livestock producers that rely on corn as a feed grain, soft drink makers that use corn as a sweetener and food manufacturers that blame corn-based ethanol for raising the price of one of their main ingredients are the main backers of the lobbying campaign.

"Feed prices and supply are pressing dairy, livestock and poultry producers to endure one of the greatest adverse economic situations in decades, which is ultimately adding unnecessary economic pressure to all Americans," 36 groups wrote President Bush last week.

The American Meat Institute , Coca-Cola , the National Chicken Council and the Grocery Manufacturers Association were among the groups and businesses that signed the letter.

The letter urged the president to suspend the ethanol tariff to "foster downward pressure for ethanol and its feedstock."

Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council , said farmers have lost on average $30 a pig between October 2007 and April 2008.

While rising energy costs have contributed to the tough economic times, the rising price of corn is more to blame, Warner said. He noted feed prices account for 70 percent of the costs to raise a pig to market.

The pork producers brought agriculture economists and farm lenders to a meeting with United States Department of Agriculture officials two weeks ago to talk about how high corn prices have hurt the livestock industry and could make it harder for producers to get operating loans in the future.

One of the council's main efforts has been to convince the administration to allow farmers to plant corn or soybeans on 7 million acres of land that is now fallow under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

Under the program, farmers enter into a contract with the government in which they agree not to farm the land. In return, farmers receive federal payments based on the number of acres that are set aside.

But those payments aren't equal to the price of corn for the market, and many farmers already are choosing not to re-up in the CRP once their contract expires.

The effort now would allow more farmers to back out of existing contracts without penalty as an enticement to corn and soybean supplies. The need, backers suggest, is even more pressing because widespread flooding in the Midwest is likely to lower annual crop yields, putting additional upward pressure on prices.

"In light of the need for more crops of all kinds, the [Department of Agriculture (USDA)] should release some additional CRP acres," Warner said.

Backers say the most environmentally sensitive acres would remain under CRP protection. But critics argue the push would do environmental damage anyway.

More corn crops mean more pollution runoff, principally from nitrogen-rich fertilizers that are blamed for the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico and interior streams and rivers.

"There is a huge environmental benefit from the CRP," said Sandra Schubert, director of government relations for the Environmental Working Group, a proponent of the conservation program.

Land is sometimes placed in CRP so that an adjacent river, for example, has time to recover. Under the program backed by livestock groups, a farmer could conceivably till land before that recovery process has been completed.

Untilled soil and natural vegetation also keeps carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from releasing into the atmosphere.

Plowing under 7 million acres is the equivalent of adding 11 million cars to the road, Schubert said.

"This would have a hugely detrimental effect on climate change," she said.

Some of the same groups pushing USDA to release farmers from CRP obligations have also written the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support a request from Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, to exempt his state from the ethanol production mandate Congress adopted as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

The mandate calls for 9 million gallons of ethanol to be produced by 2009, but states and regions can seek a waiver by proving the law would create a severe economic hardship.

In a letter to EPA, Perry stressed the economic harm done to the state's livestock industry.

Stakeholders had until last Monday to submit comments for or against Perry's request.

Critics of the ethanol production mandate, known as the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), say it is a factor in sharply rising food prices.

"The RFS encourages the use of grains for fuel instead of food and pits Americans' food needs against our fuel and energy needs," the National Restaurant Association wrote in support of Gov. Perry's request.

But the National Corn Growers Association said that whatever economic impact the ethanol mandate has had is minimal, and insufficient to warrant a waiver from the law.

"Texas Gov. Perry offers bold conclusions without providing any evidence to support his contention that the RFS is causing severe harm to the livestock industry in Texas, and astonishingly, causing skyrocketing grocery prices," the corn growers said in comments submitted to EPA.

"Not only are these claims inaccurate, they also fail to consider the many benefits that ethanol and other renewable fuels bring to Texas and the nation."

Ethanol plants in Texas created jobs, for example, the group said. Supporters also point to studies that show the additional ethanol production has kept gas prices from rising even further than they have.

A ruling from EPA was expected later this month.

As with gasoline prices, there are likely no quick fixes to rising corn prices. Most agree that a combination of factors have caused the spike, including a weak dollar and growing food demand.

Joel Velasco, a lobbyist for Unica , a Brazilian sugarcane industry association, said even if the tariff on ethanol imports were lifted, there would likely be little immediate impact.

"We're not FedEx. It's not just in time delivery," he said.

But removing the tariff would send a signal to Brazilian cane farmers to plant more, which could eventually help bring down the price of corn and ethanol.

"The fuel prices could be significantly lower if you had real competition, not just in oil but on the ethanol side as well," Velasco said.

Unica and Velasco have recently registered to lobby to make that point on Capitol Hill.