Posted on 02/04/2015 10:15:13 AM PST by MichCapCon
A study paid for by the Michigan Corn Growers Association was recently reported in the news media as though it had been conducted independently. This public relations coup for the ethanol industry was pulled off by touting it as “a Michigan State University study” and omitting the fact that it was done on behalf of the Michigan Corn Growers Association. Reporters then assumed it was an academic study conducted independently of the ethanol industry.
On Dec. 17, Michigan Capitol Confidential asked MSU spokesman Jason Cody if the study “Greenhouse Gas Reduction in Michigan Due to Ethanol Fuel Use,” was an MSU study.
Cody’s response: “Yes, this was an MSU study conducted by researchers here on campus that focused on greenhouse-gas emission reductions due to ethanol fuel use in Michigan. The study found substantial reductions in emissions.”
On Jan. 26, after receiving a tip from a source, Michigan Capitol Confidential asked Cody if the Michigan Corn Growers Association had paid for the study.
“Yes, it is my understanding they did,” Cody replied.
It could be argued that if the Michigan Corn Growers Association paid for it, the study was an “industry study” that should never be referred to as an “MSU study.” However, there are no hard rules that cover such terminological distinctions.
According to a well-placed source, the Michigan Corn Growers Association’s role as sponsor of the study was noted at the initial press conference announcing it. What is less clear is whether the press conference was attended by many independent reporters or filled with ethanol industry officials and writers. Michigan Radio appears to be the one news source to mention the study's sponsor; however, that information seems to have been added subsequent to the original posting of the article.
Aside from the press conference, the study was touted to the news media solely as an MSU product without mention of its actual sponsorship. As a result, several articles about the study gave it glowing publicity without stating that it was paid for by the Michigan Corn Growers Association. The fact that the press release announcing the study also failed to reveal this information was likely a primary reason for what happened.
“Corn ethanol is a multi-billion dollar industry and it’s not surprising that the corn growers' association would fund misinformation that essentially lines their pockets,” said Emily Cassidy, a research analyst with the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C. research and advocacy group focused on environmental health, food and agriculture issues.
“But regardless of their funding source, the study holds no merit and wouldn’t hold any more merit even if it was funded by the National Science Foundation,” said Cassidy. EWG is best known for its annual "Dirty Dozen" list of foods with high pesticide residues.
In the original Michigan Capitol Confidential story on the report, the study was criticized on its merits by several independent ethanol researchers.
Funding is only one of the ways scientific research sticks to prevailing paradigms. Everyone should remember this anytime they hear about this thing being debunked or that thing being settled.
We should not be using food sources for fuel supplements.
If ethanol is a good thing for internal combustion engines, then there are other and much more cost-effective ways to produce ethanol. And if ethanol proves in fact to be BAD for today’s design of internal combustion engines, then is should be removed from the fuel distribution infrastructure, and never used for that purpose again.
I’d wager that some form of corruption or bias lies at the core of 90% of these “studies” we always hear about.
I pay no attention to them anymore. It’s just ‘noise’ to me.
Almost forgotten is the genesis of biofuel research as a response to the Arab oil embargo and the wide acceptance of peak-oil theory. It was seen as a national security issue, as it would have been if oil had become more scarce. Not many dissenting voices then. Now it’s just more proof of the inexorable totalitarian growth of government.
...but they were INDEPENDENT corn growers....
it should never be subsidized
You know, if STUPID energy policies are going to be promulgated by our IDIOT CongressCritters, or the EPA or our doper President or WHOVER, then by gawd - someone’s going to profit from them, no matter WHAT said policy is!
Once a Cash Cow lands in your lap (look to ANY Government policy/program - they have a half-life of tens of thousands of years!) you will say and/or do anything to protect said cash cow.
This ain’t Rocket Science, Folks! However - wonder if rockets can travel on corn fuel? *SNORT*
Special Interest Corporate Welfare and all Welfare needs to be ended, PERMANETLY!
So what else is new?
I believe that should read “paid for by Big Corn”.
Corn growers have fleeced consumers long enough with the government ethanol scam that raises the cost of fuel, cuts engine efficiency and life, and increases pollution in the growing, transporting and manufacturing of this additive. With an over-abundance of fossil fuel available, we no longer need to prolong this farce.
paid for by Big Subsidy
That's what reporters do these days - assume instead of research. Lazy bums.
Corn should be turned into ethanol for but one purpose only - whiskey!
And then aged in newly charred oak barrels, of course.
The farm lobby is pretty powerful in national politics because it encompasses both major parties.
That’s why the Dems put food stamps under the Agriculture Dept instead of HHS.
Amen! Both parties getting paid off and citizens are getting screwed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.