You obviously missed the point of the hugely increased production between 1995 and 2007.
"...in 1995 American farmers produced 192 million metric tons of corn. Of this, 14.7 million tons were used to make ethanol, from which 4.9 million tons of dried distillers grain were returned to the grain market. That left 182 million tons available for consumption and export. In 2007, US corn production rose to 349 million metric tons. Of this, about 62 million tons were used to produce ethanol, of which 21 million tons of dried distillers grains were returned to the grain market. This left a whopping 308 million tons available for consumption and export -- an increase of 110 million tons, or about 82 percent, over the 1995 figures.
Lets see, 182 million metric tons available for food in 1995, 308 million metric tons available for food in 2007.
That doesn't look like a "food shortage" to me.
"Of course, he's in the pocket of "big corn.""
The numbers are from the USDA, are THEY "in the pocket of "big corn".
No, I obviously didn't. My fact is a fact independent of that additional information.
If you increase the demand (and cost) for an item, it will put upward price pressure on substitute products. When you reduce the supply of a commodity, by shifting into some other use, you increase the price.
I never contended that this fact was the only influence on prices of corn. And obviously a shift to ethanol is not the only influence on the supply of corn for food. But moving a percentage of corn from the food supply to energy production decreases the availability of corn for food, and increases the price for corn and substitute items proportionally.
That is a fact. It's effect can be aggravated or mitigated by other factors that affect supply, such as an increase in production. Obviously.
The numbers are from the USDA, are THEY “in the pocket of “big corn”.
Not exactly, they’re owned by ADM.