its my opinion that it is overgrown but I am far from the only one. As I stated field corn is used to make cheap food products such as corn fed beef and high fructose corn syrup. Not as healthy as the alternatives, but cheaper. That is the main problem, corn by itself is barely nutritional and when broken down it is actually not healthy - see corn syrup.

"THERE'S CORN IN THAT?

• Of 10,000 items in a typical grocery store, at least 2,500 use corn in some form during production or processing.
• Your bacon and egg breakfast, glass of milk at lunch, or hamburger for supper were all produced with US corn.
• Besides food for human and livestock consumption, corn is used in paint, paper products, cosmetics, tires, fuel, plastics, textiles, explosives, and wallboard – among other things.
• In the US, corn leads all other crops in value and volume of production – more than double that of any other crop.
• Corn is America's chief crop export, with total bushels exported exceeding total bushels used domestically for food, seed, and industrial purposes"

"Why is the productivity of corn a problem?
We're producing way too much corn. So, we make corn sweeteners. High-fructose corn sweeteners are everywhere. They've completely replaced sugar in sodas and soft drinks. They make sweet things cheaper. We also give it to animals. Corn explains everything about the cattle industry. It explains why we have to give [cattle] antibiotics, because corn doesn't agree with their digestive system. It explains why we have this E.coli 0157 problem, because the corn acidifies their digestive system in such a way that these bacteria can survive.

And we subsidize this overproduction. We structure the subsidies to make corn very, very cheap, which encourages farmers to plant more and more to make the same amount of money. The argument is that it helps us compete internationally. The great beneficiaries are the processors that are using corn domestically. We're subsidizing obesity. We're subsidizing the food-safety problems associated with feedlot beef. It's an absolutely irrational system. The people who worry about public health don't have any control over agricultural subsidies. The USDA is not thinking about public health. The USDA is thinking about getting rid of corn. And, helping [businesses] to be able to make their products more cheaply – whether it's beef or high-fructose corn syrup. Agribusiness gives an immense amount of funding to Congress."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1031/p17s01-lihc.html


Also, watch the documentary:

http://www.kingcorn.net/
On PBS or at your local Blockbuster.

Not trying to pick any fights, just putting this out there.

 

It explains why we have this E.coli 0157 problem, because the corn acidifies their digestive system in such a way that these bacteria can survive.

Not quite true when one examines research from 1999:

Laboratory testing showed the suggested dietary cure was a false hope. "We think it would actually be detrimental to feed cattle hay just before slaughter because the cattle would likely shed more of the bacteria if they are carrying it in their intestinal tract," she said. More importantly, the acid resistance of E. coli O157:H7 from grain-fed cattle was the same as the acid resistance of E. coli O157:H7 from hay-fed cattle.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0719081202.htm

The risk to humans lies in the consumption of uncooked meats, unpasturized raw milk and infected feces spread in the farm fields.

A source of questions and answere on the E. coli 0157

http://ohioline.osu.edu/vme-fact/0016.html

 

"All this is not only unnatural and dangerous for the cows. It also has profound consequences for us. Feedlot beef as we know it today would be impossible if it weren't for the routine and continual feeding of antibiotics to these animals. This leads directly and inexorably to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These are the new "superbugs" that are increasingly rendering our "miracle drugs" ineffective.

As well, it is the commercial meat industry's practice of keeping cattle in feedlots and feeding them grain that is responsible for the heightened prevalence of E. coli 0157:H7 bacteria. When cattle are grainfed, their intestinal tracts become far more acidic, which favors the growth of pathogenic E. coli bacteria, which in turn kills people who eat undercooked hamburger.

E. coli 0157:H7 has only recently appeared on the scene. First isolated in the 1980s, this pathogen is now found in the intestines of most U.S. feedlot cattle. The practice of feeding corn and other grains to cattle has created the perfect conditions for microbes to come into being that can harm and kill us. As Michael Pollan explains:
"Most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their way into our food get killed off by the acids in our stomachs, since they originally adapted to live in a neutral-pH environment. But the digestive tract of the modern feedlot cow is closer in acidity to our own, and in this new, manmade environment acid-resistant strains of E. coli have developed that can survive our stomach acids - and go on to kill us. By acidifying a cow's gut with corn, we have broken down one of our food chain's barriers to infections."
Many of us think of "corn-fed" beef as nutritionally superior, but it isn't. A corn-fed cow does develop well-marbled flesh, but this is simply saturated fat that can't be trimmed off. Grass-fed meat, on the other hand, is lower both in overall fat and in artery-clogging saturated fat. A sirloin steak from a grain-fed feedlot steer has more than double the total fat of a similar cut from a grass-fed steer. In its less-than-infinite wisdom, however, the USDA continues to grade beef in a way that rewards marbling with intra-muscular fat.

Grass-fed beef not only is lower in overall fat and in saturated fat, but it has the added advantage of providing more omega-3 fats. These crucial healthy fats are most plentiful in flaxseeds and fish, and are also found in walnuts, soybeans and in meat from animals that have grazed on omega-3 rich grass. When cattle are taken off grass, though, and shipped to a feedlot to be fattened on grain, they immediately begin losing the omega-3s they have stored in their tissues. As a consequence, the meat from feedlot animals typically contains only 15- 50 percent as much omega-3s as that from grass-fed livestock.

This is certainly an advantage for grass-fed beef, but it comes with a cost. The higher omega-3 levels and other differences in fatty acid composition contributes to flavors and odors in grass-fed meat that most people find undesirable. Taste-panel participants have found the meat from grass-fed animals to be characterized by "off-flavors including ammonia, gamey, bitter, liverish, old, rotten and sour."

http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm


and the corn syrup = higher diabetes rates is a whole other argument showing our use of corn as unhealthy.

The situation is such that corn is soo cheap because of being overgrown that corn growers depend on the government payments to be profitable (not all growers but most).

 

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...-food-47081501

"
The high price of corn has also made it hard on conventional — if that's the right word — beef ranchers, who have for decades converted cheap corn into profits by feeding it to cows on crowded feed lots.


It's already been reported that some ranchers have turned to the waste from ethanol plants to feed their cows, and that the switch makes the cows produce even more E. coli bacteria — the kind that's harmless to cows, but which can and frequently has contaminated the meat supply for humans. Dozens have been made ill from eating beef produced at plants "processing" — that is, assembly line-style slaughtering — these cows.

What's also true is that E. coli only showed up so prolifically in the guts of cows since they've been fed corn in the last 50 years or so. A starchy food the grass-eaters didn't evolve to consume, corn produces an acidic mess in their stomachs that E. coli bacteria apparently loves. But corn has been made cheap by federal policy, and it can be used — often along with artificial hormones — to make cows grow faster and fatter. As Georgian grass-fed beef rancher Will Harris put it, "The best way to sell seven pounds of corn was to sell one pound of beef." (Of course, as Harris knows, all that rapid growth on an unnatural diet in such close proximity to other cows makes it necessary to treat them with antibiotics to prevent other disease outbreaks, which like E. coli would be rare if the animals weren't raised this way.)

Without cheap corn, the economic model for beef ranchers is broken. And there's only so much waste from ethanol plants to go around. Fortunately for these ranchers, there's waste from other sources — namely, any nearby food processing plant. As a Wall Street Journal video recently demonstrated (thanks to Tom Philpott at Grist for bringing it to my attention), some ranchers are feeding their cows potato chips and chocolate. Actually, that's too generous: the cows are eating waste — the potato chip and chocolate waste not fit for the junk food aisle at the grocery store."

 

Corn has dropped over $2.00 a bushel in the last 30 days. http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/98

Your statements are ignoring the long time health practices of throughly cooking meat, pasturizing milk products and performing other well known health care practices at home, in the marketplace and on the farm.

As for directly implementing corn syrup with diabetes, this might be defined as an association but not a direct link. As with smoking, not all smokers end up with smoking related health issues. Not all consumers who use corn syrup end up with diabetes. Consumers in this country have freedom to use corn syrup products or not to use such sweeteners.

 

As I stated, these are my opinions; I am merely stating them.

 

Back on topic....

"TOKYO, Aug 18, 2008 (Thomson Financial via COMTEX) -- SZKMF | Japanese car maker Suzuki Motor Corp plans to develop cars that run completely on bioethanol fuel and release them in South America and the United States in around 2010, the Nikkei reported at the weekend, without citing sources.
As a first step, the company plans to begin selling in Brazil and elsewhere a passenger car fuelled by a gasoline-bioethanol mixture that is 25 percent bioethanol by the end of March, 2009 the business daily said.

In the field of hybrid cars Suzuki is considering offering a hybrid option for a 3-litre midsize car, leveraging its joint development efforts with General Motors Corp, with which it has a capital partnership. "

NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD ARE ADOPTING ETHANOL, not just the U.S. & Brazil.

Those of you who are anit-corn fed beef should be very pro-corn-fed cars then!
( remember, corn is just the first step, soon, others will follow... )

"In New Mexico, Sustainable Technology is proposing a cattail-based ethanol plant for Otero County. Sustainable president Peggy Korth is the author of “Cattails to Ethanol”, and told Otero County officials in a recent presentation that the county could utilize numerous alternative crops, including salt cedar and cattails, in ethanol production. Cattails require abundant water but thrive on waste water, and can produce as much as 1,000 gallons per acre in ideal conditions, according to Korth. The cattails do not require additional fertilization and cattail cultivation cleanses the waste water, as well as reducing salt levels in water."

"In Washington state, a Washington State University researcher received a federal grant for his studies on converting poplar trees to ethanol. Preliminary research showed yields of up to 1000 gallons per acre at a production cost of less than $1 per gallon."

Wood waste has been cited as a strong feedstock candidate for cellulosic ethanol production, and the head of the US Forest Service recently called for the conversion of underbrush to fuel, but this report is one of the few on the potential of ethanol produced from tree farms.

"In Michigan, researchers at Michigan State have developed a description of a new protein used in the conversion of sunlight to sugar and oxygen. The new information about how the protein, TDG4, works, could lead to the development of “super-plants” that produce high yields of biofuel. At the same time, a MSU research team is assembling a web-based genome database for bioenergy crops. The databadse, according to the research team, will simplify the process of developing lower-cost cellulosic ethanol."

"In Illinois, researchers announced the discovery that new enzymes, able to be grown in corn, will break down plant cellulose for cellulosic ethanol production. Typical enzymes are grown in energy-intensive bioreactors, and are a significant cost factor in cellulosic ethanol. The researchers await more testing to determine whether their cocktail of three enzymes will have sufficient strength to break, rather than soften, the cellulose wall."

“Rarely has there been so much condescending feel-good hooey from anti-government conservatives and anti-big business, save-the-world liberals”
biofuelsdigest.com

"OMAHA, NEB. — Ethanol producers last week railed against what they described as a smear campaign by opponents who have branded the industry responsible for rising food prices.

"Today, we face strong opposition, and their weapon primarily is the press," Bob Scott, president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, told hundreds of producers gathered in Omaha for the group's trade show.

It comes little more than a week after the Environmental Protection Agency gave the industry some good news by refusing to cut the federal ethanol mandate.

But the ethanol industry has been hurt over the past year by criticism that falsely linked the corn-based fuel to rising food prices. Food companies, cattle organizations and others have suggested that ethanol production was the main reason for higher corn prices.

Scott said the facts support the ethanol industry's view that the recent spike in energy prices is the biggest factor in food price increases.

Robert Brummels, who serves on the board of Nebraska ethanol company Husker Ag, said he thinks the industry's public relations problems will pass.

"It's a temporary problem, and ultimately the truth will prevail," Brummels said.

Ethanol producers, such as Poet, are working on developing cellulose-based forms of ethanol to supplement corn-based ethanol. Poet said last week that its new pilot cellulosic plant should begin producing fuel from corn cobs and fiber by the end of the year.

The energy bill passed by Congress last year requires 9 billion gallons of ethanol to be blended into gasoline this year and about 11 billion gallons next year. The mandate requires refiners to use 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022.

To meet the lofty federal goal, industry experts agree that corn-based ethanol will remain only part of the equation."

 

where exactly did we go off topic? corn is the biggest source of ethanol right? so its on topic to discuss the quantity of which is grown and what other products are affected by its use as a fuel.

Not all Nations are adopting Ethanol
http://features.csmonitor.com/enviro...ofuel-targets/

you do realize this is a green site that has alot of save-the-world-liberals on here?
find a new source for the ethanol and the problems will lessen but with only a marginal emission benefit over gas you will not win over the save-the-world-liberals entirely.

when an industry is staying afloat by depending on federal subsidies then something is wrong.

 

Well the good news is, it doesn't need subsidies!
With the raise in corn demand and price, government payouts to farmers are way down.
Most of what you hear about is "insurance" payouts, for failed crops.
The gov. is saying, take a chance on farming, we'll pay you if there is a flood or drought.

The gov. subsidies for corn amount to pennies per acre.
[EDIT]
A recent government search, I found the following:

In 2006, the top 20% of corn subsidy recipiants received an average of $22,864.
In 2006 the bottom 80% of corn subsidy recipiants received an average of $1,843.

Who getting rich from those subsidies?

In 2005, total corn subsidies were $9.4 billion.
In 2006, total corn subsidies were $4.9 billion. ( most recent data in tabular form )

Ok, so I understated earlier. That is a few dollars per acre in subsidy.
That is a drop in the proverbial bucket, I think.

The ethanol PRODUCER gets ZERO federal money, but perhaps local incentives such as property tax breaks on a case-by-case basis.

Take away oil subsidies, and gasoline would cost about $18 per gallon!

P.S. Average subsidy paid to each hybrid car owner, $2500 (estimate). ( Myself, $3800 )
Plus, buying less gas per mile, means you are paying less tax per mile. More "subsidy" in effect.

 

Take away oil subsidies, and gasoline would cost about $18 per gallon!

please back that one up...