Search

This paper examines the effect that biofuels production has had on commodity and global food prices. The innovative contribution of this paper is the interactive spreadsheet that allows the reader to choose the assumptions behind the estimates. By allowing the reader to choose the country, time period, supply and demand elasticities, and the size of indirect effects we explicitly illustrate the sensitivity of the estimated effect of biofuels production on prices. Our best estimates suggest that the increase in biofuels production over the past two years has had a sizeable impact on corn, sugar, barley and soybean prices, but a much smaller impact on global food prices. Over the past two years (ending June 2008), we estimate that the increase in worldwide biofuels production pushed up corn, soybean and sugar prices by 27, 21 and 12 percentage points respectively. The countries that account for most of the upward pressure on these prices are the United States and Brazil. Our best estimates suggest that the increase in U.S. biofuels production (ethanol and biodiesel) pushed up corn prices by more than 22 percentage points and soybean prices (soybeans and soybean oil) by more than 15 percentage points, while the increase in EU biofuels production pushed corn and soybean prices up around 3 percentage points. Brazil's increase in sugar-based ethanol production accounts for the entire rise in the price of sugar. Although biofuels had a noticeable impact on individual crop prices, they had a much smaller impact on global food prices. Our best estimate suggests that the increase in worldwide biofuels production over the past two years accounts for just over 12 percent of the rise in the IMF's food price index. The increase in U.S. biofuels production accounts for roughly 60 percent of this effect, while Brazil accounts for 14 percent and the EU accounts for 15 percent. The key take-away point is that nearly 90 percent of the rise in global food prices comes from factors other than biofuels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a history of the federal role in regulating the manufacture, sale, and distribution of alcoholic beverages in the United States from the opening of the First Congress of 1789 to the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1918. Beginning with the passage of the nation's first tariff, imposing duties on imported beer, wine, and spirits, and ending with the onset of national Prohibition and the complete ban on the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages, the story of the federal regulation of alcohol from 1789 to 1918 encompasses a wide variety of political, economic, sociological, and constitutional issues and features a series of epic debates and even violent struggles involving all three branches of government.

Since the creation of the Federal Food and Drug law in 1906 up until a district court decision in 1976, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shared concurrent jurisdiction with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) over both the adulteration and misbranding (labeling) of alcoholic beverages. As a policy matter, the FDA deferred the regulation of alcoholic beverages labeling to the BATF in order to avoid duplication, as long as the regulations were consistent with the food labeling requirements of the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, as a result of a District court ruling in 1976, the BATF now possesses exclusive jurisdiction over the labeling of alcoholic beverages under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. This has led to the some peculiar results and a confusing regulatory scheme. For instance, the FDA requires affirmative ingredient and nutritional labeling of all “food and drinks†within its jurisdictional boundaries, whereas the BATF does not require ingredient labeling requirements for any alcoholic beverages within its jurisdictional boundaries and still follows the mandate of an alcohol labeling law that dates back to the enactment of the Federal Administration Act in 1935. This has resulted in a lack of consumer information regarding the ingredients and contents in alcoholic beverages, as ingredient and nutritional labeling give consumers the information they need to make responsible choices about their consumption of food and beverages. Today, the FDA still holds concurrent jurisdiction over the adulteration of all alcoholic beverages, and exclusive labeling jurisdiction over wine and cider with less than ten percent alcohol, but the BATF has not yet issued ingredient labeling requirements, nor has a congressional mandate granted the FDA the power to assume jurisdiction over the labeling of alcoholic beverages.

The article reports on the ban enforced by the U.S. state of Maryland on high-strength grain alcohol at or above 190 proof, or 95 percent alcohol by volume (abv) to cut sexual assaults and binge-drinking among college students.

The article presents information on Great Britain's sugar and sweetener producer Tate & Lyle PLC. Apart from sweeteners, the group uses grains, wheat and corn to make ethanol, starches and citric acids. It has more than 65 production facilities in 29 countries in Europe, the U.S. and Southeast Asia. During the fiscal year ended March 2006, the group recorded revenues of £3,720 million.

Cellulosic biofuels are produced from cellulose derived from renewable biomass. They are thought by many to hold the key to increased benefits from renewable biofuels because they are made from low-cost, diverse, non-food feedstocks. Cellulosic biofuels could also potentially decrease the fossil energy required to produce ethanol, resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions. Cellulosic biofuels are produced on a very small scale at this time -- significant hurdles must be overcome before commercial-scale production can occur. The renewable fuels standard (RFS), a major federal incentive, mandates 100 million gallons per year (mgpy) of cellulosic biofuels use in 2010. After 2015, most of the increase in the RFS is intended to come from cellulosic biofuels, and by 2022, the mandate for cellulosic biofuels will be 16 billion gallons. Whether these targets can be met is uncertain. Research is ongoing, and the cellulosic biofuels industry may be on the verge of rapid expansion and technical breakthroughs. However, at this time, only two small refineries are scheduled to begin production in 2009, and an additional nine are expected to commence production by 2011 for total output of 300 mgpy per year, compared with an RFS requirement of 500 mgpy in 2012. The federal government, recognizing the risk inherent in commercializing this new technology, has provided loan guarantees, grants, and tax credits in an effort to make the industry competitive by 2012. In particular, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill, P.L. 110-246) supports the nascent cellulosic industry through authorized research programs, grants, and loans exceeding $1 billion. The enacted farm bill also contains a production tax credit of $1.01 per gallon for ethanol produced from cellulosic feedstocks. Private investment, in many cases by oil companies, also plays a major role in cellulosic biofuels research and development. Three challenges must be overcome if the RFS is to be met. First, cellulosic feedstocks must be available in large volumes when needed by refineries. Second, the cost of converting cellulose to ethanol or other biofuels must be reduced to a level to make it competitive with gasoline and corn-starch ethanol. Third, the marketing, distribution, and vehicle infrastructure must absorb the increasing volumes of renewable fuel, including cellulosic fuel mandated by the RFS. Congress will continue to face questions about the appropriate level of intervention in the cellulosic industry as it debates both the risks in trying to pick the winning technology and the benefits of providing start-up incentives. The current tax credit for cellulosic biofuels expires in 2012, but its extension may be considered during the 111th Congress. Congress may continue to debate the role of biofuels in food price inflation and whether cellulosic biofuels can alleviate its impacts. Recent congressional action on cellulosic biofuels has focused on the definition of renewable biomass eligible for the RFS, which is considered by some to be overly restrictive. To this end, legislation has been introduced to expand the definition of renewable biomass eligible under the RFS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past several years, high oil and gas prices, instability in many oilproducing countries, and concerns about global climate change have heightened interest in ethanol and other biofuels as alternatives to petroleum products. Reducing oil dependency is a goal shared by the United States and many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region composed primarily of energy-importing countries. In the region, Brazil stands out as an example of a country that has become a net exporter of energy, partially by increasing its production and use of sugar-based ethanol. On March 9, 2007, the United States and Brazil, which together produce almost 70% of the world's ethanol, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to promote greater cooperation on ethanol and other biofuels in the Western Hemisphere. The countries agreed to (1) advance research and development bilaterally, (2) help build domestic biofuels industries in third countries, and (3) work multilaterally to advance the global development of biofuels. Many analysts maintain that the United States would benefit from having more energy producers in the region, while Brazil stands to further its goal of developing ethanol into a globally traded commodity. In addition to these economic benefits, some analysts think that an ethanol partnership with Brazil could help improve the U.S. image in Latin America and lessen the influence of oil-rich Venezuela under Hugo Chᶥz. However, obstacles to increased U.S.-Brazil cooperation on biofuels exist, including current U.S. tariffs on most Brazilian ethanol imports. While some Members of Congress support greater hemispheric cooperation on biofuels development, others are wary of any cooperative efforts that might negatively affect U.S. ethanol producers. The Energy Diplomacy and Security Act of 2007, S. 193 (Lugar), approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 28, 2007, would increase hemispheric cooperation on energy. S. 1007 (Lugar), the United States-Brazil Energy Cooperation Pact of 2007, calls for the same hemispheric cooperation groups as S. 193, and directs the Secretary of State to work with Brazil and other Western Hemisphere countries to develop biofuels partnerships. H.Res. 651 (Engel) recognizes and supports the importance of the U.S.-Brazil MOU on biofuels. In the 109th Congress, legislation was introduced that would have eliminated current tariffs on foreign ethanol, but in December 2006, Congress voted to extend the ethanol tariffs through December 31, 2008 (P.L. 109432). In the 110th Congress, S. 1106 (Thune) would extend those tariffs through 2011, and H.R. 196 (Pomeroy) would make the tariffs permanent. This report discusses the opportunities and barriers related to increasing U.S. cooperation with other countries in the hemisphere on biofuels development, focusing on the U.S.-Brazil agreement. This report may be updated. For more information, see CRS Report RL33290, Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues, and CRS Report RL33693, Latin America: Energy Supply, Political Developments, and U.S. Policy Approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethanol plays a key role in policy discussions about energy, agriculture, taxes, and the environment. In the United States it is mostly made from corn; in other countries it is often made from cane sugar. Fuel ethanol is generally blended in gasoline to reduce emissions, increase octane, and extend gasoline stocks. Recent high oil and gasoline prices have led to increased interest in alternatives to petroleum fuels for transportation. Further, concerns over climate change have raised interest in developing fuels with lower fuel-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions. Supporters of ethanol argue that its use can lead to lower emissions of toxic and ozone-forming pollutants, and greenhouse gases, especially if higher-level blends are used. They further argue that ethanol use displaces petroleum imports, thus promoting energy security. Ethanol's detractors argue that various federal and state policies supporting ethanol distort the market and amount to corporate welfare for corn growers and ethanol producers. Further, they argue that the energy and chemical inputs needed to turn corn into ethanol actually increase emissions and energy consumption, although most recent studies have found modest energy and emissions benefits from ethanol use relative to gasoline. The market for fuel ethanol is heavily dependent on federal incentives and regulations. Ethanol production is encouraged by a federal tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. This incentive allows ethanol -- which has historically been more expensive than conventional gasoline -- to compete with gasoline and other blending components. In addition to the above tax credit, small ethanol producers qualify for an additional production credit. It has been argued that the fuel ethanol industry could scarcely survive without these incentives. In addition to the above tax incentives, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 10958) established a renewable fuels standard (RFS). This standard requires the use of 4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2006, increasing each year to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. Most of this requirement will likely be met with ethanol. In the United States, approximately 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol were consumed in 2004. Thus, the RFS will likely lead to a doubling of the U.S. ethanol market by 2012. Some analysts believe that this program could have serious effects on gasoline suppliers, leading to somewhat higher fuel prices. Thus, the Environmental Protection Agency's implementation of the program will likely be of continuing concern to Congress. Other issues of Congressional interest include support for purer blends of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline (as opposed to a gasoline blending component), promotion of ethanol vehicles and infrastructure, and imports of ethanol from foreign countries. This report supersedes CRS Report RL30369, Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues (available from author). It will be updated as events warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gasoline demand in the United States has grown consistently during the past decade, increasing by a total of 20%. Between 1999 and 2003, gasoline consumption grew by 500,000 barrels per day, accounting for all of the increase in petroleum consumption during that period. While 2004 may see growth slow down because of high prices, during the first seven months of the year gasoline demand was up by another 1.9%. The fact that gasoline supply has not kept up with demand has been reflected in pump prices that have risen from $1.50 at the start of 2004 to as high as $2.06 per gallon in late May. When supply and demand become out of sync with their previous relationship, prices change to establish a new balance. The outcome has been a period of volatile gasoline prices, which have set record highs that have become a focal point for consumers and policy makers, and raised concerns about their impact on the economy. Gasoline is supplied both by U.S. and foreign refiners. Domestic producers' capacity is limited. As a result, nearly 1 million barrels per day of gasoline and its components are imported. Imported blending components -- especially those used in ethanol-blended fuel -- are increasingly important to total U.S. supply. Without this supplemental supply, gasoline would be less available and prices likely higher. Imports most recently have come from Canada and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which supply one-third of the off-shore supply. Argentina, the Netherlands, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela provide another third. Imports peaked in March 2004, took a dip, and reached new highs in July. Increased imports may have contributed to pump prices backing off their May highs in late summer. New gasoline blending components from Venezuela and the rehabilitation of a refinery in Aruba may also contribute to enhanced gasoline component supply later this year. Gasoline component availability -- which has increased during 2004 -- gives domestic refiners an added measure of flexibility in using their capacity, and contributes to enhanced supplies of fuels needed to meet demand for ethanol-based gasoline and other specialized regional blends. Potential policy concerns raised by growing reliance on gasoline imports include the availability of foreign supplies that meet U.S. specifications, whether incremental foreign supplies can be provided quickly enough to meet shifting demand, and the delivered price of imported gasoline. Two legislative efforts were debated in the House regarding gasoline supply issues during 2004. One, H.R. 4517, has passed the House but not been taken up in the Senate. It would provide for easier permitting for refinery capacity expansion. And H.R. 4545, which did not pass the House, would have limited the growth of special regional fuel blends, often called "boutique fuels." This report will be updated as events warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consumer advocates say Americans are under siege by advertisers, and that the problem is more serious than just irritating dinnertime phone calls or endless ads during movie previews and commercial names for sports stadiums. The advocates blame increasingly intrusive advertising for such societal ills as childhood obesity, rising health-care costs and lost productivity because workplace e-mail boxes are clogged by unsolicited emails, known as spam. Public outcry has resulted in a national do-not-call list aimed at curbing telemarketing and may soon trigger a do-not-e-mail list to deter spammers. Other advertising critics are seeking greater restrictions on advertising to children. Advertisers and some advocacy groups, however, warn that many of the proposed restrictions violate First Amendment protections for free speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alcohol-related deaths at several schools in recent months, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have prompted many administrators to take tougher stands on student drinking. The tragedies - often involving "binge" drinking - underscore how available alcohol is, even to students under 21, and how much drinking is a part of campus life, especially among fraternity and sorority members. School administrators say the nation's minimum drinking age presents them with two equally unappealing options: banning alcohol and running the risk of out-of-control off-campus parties, or looking the other way at underage drinking while trying to teach students responsible behavior. Administrators and health officials agree, however, that alcohol abuse is a communitywide affliction, not merely a campus problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Liquor ads began running on television lastyear for the first time in nearly a half-century. Many public health groups and government officials reacted with alarm, arguing that distilled spirits ads inevitably would be seen by young, impressionable viewers - and in fact deliberately were aimed at youth. The major networks say they won't run liquor commercials. But distillers argue that a standard serving of wine or beer contains approximately the same volume of alcohol as a mixed drink, and that they are only seeking a level playing field with wine and beer, which have advertised on radio and television for decades. Critics retort, however, that the liquor industry's actual goal is to boost liquor sales, which have been declining for years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite their great diversity, Native Americans share a fierce attachment to the land. But of the 1.9 billion acres that Native Americans roamed 500 years ago, only 46 million acres remain in Indian hands today. The Indians' lost heritage helps explain their outrage over this year's 500th anniversary celebrations of Christopher Columbus' first voyage to the New World. Columbus, to the Indians, was not a brave discoverer but a savage despoiler who brought slavery, disease and genocide. While Indians continue to battle oppressive social and health problems, they also are fighting for new respect. This includes denouncing the use of Indian names for professional and school sports teams. Eliminating Indian team names will help erase ethnic stereotypes, they say, making it easier for Americans to see Indians as individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that Bahrain's ability to attract foreign investment in the future will depend on a lasting solution to the political crisis that happened in the country. It mentions that businesses may continue shifting operations towards Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) if the country's political environment remains unstable. It also notes that the social environment of Bahrain stands out against its neighbours in areas such as the availability of alcohol.