Yes, and it has been largely and widespread refuted as "junk".
Just like the "Dust to Dust" report that says a Prius does more harm to the planet than a Hummer. Same type stuff.

It's based on fears, not facts.

I've done my own study, and I have found ethanol is "neutral" so my position is "neutral". I have determined it does no harm to the environment, but it's not much help either.

The most benefit may be a shift of wealth from cities and metro areas, to more rural areas. It is pumping millions of dollars into small towns, but we are not really reducing oil imports in the process.

Cost of food is going from from the cost of oil going up for one example.
There is 100 times more land use change from paving over wild areas for homes and cities, than for ethanol for another example.

We can make ethanol from cellulose today.
And the cost of cellulosic ethanol is close to $6 a gallon now.
This cost gets lower every year, as the price of oil rises every year.
Just like hybrid or EV batteries, the technology is here now.
Just costs are too high to exploit.
At the rate we are going now, cellulosic ethanol will be the same price of gas in fewer than 5 years. It is the cost holding up the transition from corn to cellulose, not the technology.