Certainly the argument could be made that money made on ethanol actually subsidizes animal feed.
A rough rule is that a given weight of corn will produce one-third ethanol, one-third high protein animal feed, and one-third CO2.
I think the most important feature of ethanol is that at any time in the case of severe food shortage we could stop making it and we’d have a lot of surplus corn. Ethanol gives us a food buffer in case of war or famine.
In all of the arguments to date that I've seen against ethanol, every one throws out the 1/3 high protein animal feed.
Instead, for purposes of advancing their sides argument, they assume that 1/3 to simply be landfill material, and of no value to anyone.
In actual large scale animal experiments done by universities, that 1/3 is sometimes as high as 1/2.