Previously, I addressed the give and take of food prices. Pam Ronald at Tomorrow’s Table also adds to the discussion:

In an editorial this week in the NYT, Paul Krugman places part of the blame for rising food prices on biofuels: “We need to pushback against biofuels that turns out to have been a terrible mistake.” But this conclusion is premature and overly simplistic.

Whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced. If we destroy rainforests and grasslands to plant food crop–based biofuels, then Krugman is right. This would be a terrible mistake. (…)

But there is more to the story. The same study indicates that biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials (so called cellulosic biomass) incurs little or no carbon debt and can offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages. Research on cellulosic biofuels have only just begun and there are tremendous opportunities. For example, plant biologists are working towards developing new and more productive non-food crops that can be grown on marginal lands. If we triple the yield of biomass we can use 1/3 less land. If we use the most ecologically responsible farming practices available (e.g. organic farming) to produce this new crop biomass, we can reduce the environmental impacts.

Late last year, we interviewed Ken Vogel for our plant breeding videos, who works on switchgrass breeding for biofuel production. Shortly thereafter, a paper of his came out suggesting that switchgrass for cellulosic ethanol production (ethanol made from the cell walls of the grass, rather than distilled from grain sugars or sugarcane) packs a whopping 540% net energy gain, which could be grown on marginal lands. Heck, even on the side of highways!

Sorry, the video is not yet available, we’re interviewing another researcher this summer to put it together into a two-person video. But I’ll have a few ready for the intarwub sometime late May or early June. Stay tuned!

Also, on the ethanol issue, no one who has been pushing for increased ethanol production has been operating under any myths that corn ethanol is going to save the environment. We’ve known that corn grain to ethanol only gives you a slight energy gain - so why start making ethanol now? Here’s a hint: how long would it take car manufacturers to make good ethanol-using cars, and for people to start buying them? We could have the best, most efficient ethanol imaginable fifteen years from now, but it would take another decade to get people to scrap their current vehicles and hop on the hydroxide bandwagon.

With recent papers criticizing making ethanol from corn, it is still better than gasoline. Even with all its problems.

Anyway, there’s a flip-side to the food price issue. If you’ve heard that agricultural subsidies undercut the price of crops produced by farmers in developing countries, now you’re in for a surprise. With the rise in food prices, people have been talking about higher food prices instead beign bad for people in those same countries. In this case, higher prices are going to make people starve. There’s an AP story about the president of the World Food Bank calling for more action to provide food to people that are having a hard time getting it due to the price increases.

Robert Zoellick on Sunday said the international community has “to put our money where our mouth is” and act now to help hungry people. “It is as stark as that.”

He called on governments to rapidly carry out commitments to provide the U.N. World Food Program with $500 million in emergency aid it needs by May 1. (…)

Strauss-Kahn had said Saturday that the problem could also create trade imbalances that would impact major advanced economies, “so it is not only a humanitarian question.”

He said if the price spike continues, “Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people will be starving. Children will be suffering from malnutrition, with consequences for all their lives.”

So which is it, are higher or lower food prices good for people in poorer developing countries? Depends upon whether or not you are a farmer or a consumer. Higher prices are good for their farmers, whereas lower prices can bankrupt them. Higher prices starve their people, whereas lower prices help fill their bellies. I find it troubling that the plight of people elsewhere in the world, as complex as it is, is only turning into a “higher prices” vs “lower prices” debate over here - for those who want to help it can be very confusing.

Here’s my take on it at the moment. Relief is needed to help people who cannot afford current (and future) higher food prices. But they need something for the long term. If high price trends continue, it will be advantageous for farmers in developing countries, and we should do what we can to help out the farmers. Get better technologies in their hands, make it possible for them to invest in their farms (Micro-loans, anyone?) because the money they make is going to help the local economy.

Agriculture touches so many things, now more than ever before. Farms don’t just affect food, fiber, and basic economics - now with fuel involved it’s a bigger, more complex issue. It’s great to be a part of this discussion, and it’s one we should be having.