Does fuel reduce food production? Not in Brazil

Could increased biofuel production reduce food availability, contributing to inflation? The “food versus fuel” dilemma has recently resurfaced amid the debate over decarbonizing shipping .

European countries argued that replacing fossil fuels with first-generation biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, could contribute to higher food prices.

Supporters of the thesis defend alternatives such as electrification and fuels generated from hydrogen, such as methanol – more expensive options, without scale and that would require billions of dollars in investments in infrastructure and engine adaptation.

The controversy flared in 2008, amid a surge in food prices, when a World Bank report concluded that “large increases in biofuel production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the sharp rise in global food prices.”

The same report, however, stated that “Brazil’s sugarcane-based ethanol has not significantly raised food prices.”

In 2010, however, another study by the same entity revised the previous conclusions, stating that it may have overestimated the contribution of biofuel production.

Another independent paper, produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), also concluded that the impact of biofuels on food prices is much smaller.

In discussions on maritime transport, Brazil took a delegation made up of representatives from the biofuels sector and researchers with a review of hundreds of studies to counter criticisms of biomass fuels.

Biofuel does not affect or even increase food supply, according to most studies

According to the survey, out of 224 studies, two-thirds show that biofuels have no impact or even increase food availability. Domestically, especially in low-income regions, bioenergy generally increases access to food.

“Concerns about rising food prices due to bioenergy are mainly seen in rich countries. In these places, about 75% of studies have noted negative effects,” says an excerpt from the presentation.

In the case of Brazil, the increase in demand for corn in ethanol production, for example, did not reduce the supply of grain for food or animal feed in the domestic and international markets, according to one of the studies analyzed.

Data from the National Corn Ethanol Union (Unem) show that the production of corn biofuel jumped from 30 million liters in the 2013/14 harvest to 8 billion liters in 2024/25. The projection is that by 2033/34 the volume will reach 16.6 billion.

Daniel Rosa, technical advisor to the Brazilian Association of Corn and Sorghum Producers (Abramilho), explains that in the process of manufacturing ethanol from grain, corn bran is generated, known by the acronym in English DDG (dried distillers grains with solubles) .

“After the ethanol manufacturing process, this corn that would otherwise be discarded is actually reused in the production of bran, which, with different protein concentrations, returns to the industry to supply the animal protein chain, mainly beef, pork and poultry,” he says.

The same occurs in the production of biodiesel from soy, which as a by-product generates bran, which contains up to twice as much protein compared to beef.

“If soybean oil were not used for biofuel, we would have a surplus of oil and a shortage of soybean meal, reducing the supply of vegetable protein, which would make food even more expensive,” explains Lucas Costa Beber, president of the Association of Soybean Producers of the State of Mato Grosso (Aprosoja-MT).

Combined production of soybeans and corn generates food, feed and energy. And sequesters gases from the atmosphere

Alternating the planting of soybeans with corn to generate ethanol also allows for the combined production of food, feed and energy.

Furthermore, the production of soybeans combined with corn not only does not reduce carbon emissions, but also sequesters gases from the atmosphere.

“There is no other system in the world that leaves a net carbon sequestration of 1.6 tons per hectare. It is not a low-emission system, but a negative-emission system,” says Beber.

In the case of sugar cane, alternating production with peanut and soybean cultivation reduces the need for fertilizers, increasing local biodiversity and promoting income gains in the same productive area.

Furthermore, research shows that increased income in rural areas due to biofuel production has led to innovation in Brazilian agribusiness, the modernization of agriculture, the development of better management practices, and improved productivity and sustainability.

Biofuels have a history of improving socioeconomic indicators

Biofuels also have a proven track record of improving socioeconomic indicators. In 2023, the Brazilian sugar and ethanol sector generated 2.2 million direct and indirect jobs. Many countries that produce biofuels also produce electricity in their plants, which is fed into the grid, expanding access to energy in rural areas.

“The potential of emerging economies in countries that do not produce, but already have cultivation and a vocation for agriculture, to produce biofuels is clear,” declared Francisco Turra, president of the Board of Directors of the Brazilian Biofuel Producers Association (Aprobio), in a statement.

According to him, in countries that are currently leading players in this sector, such as in Latin America, it is possible to double biofuel production and meet the demands of the energy transition. This is an opportunity for Brazil – a leader in food and biofuel production – to grow even more in these areas, according to Turra.

In Brazil, Raízen, in partnership with the Finnish company Wärtsilä, is developing research into the application of ethanol as a marine fuel. Replacing fossil fuels with sugarcane derivatives could reduce carbon emissions by up to 80% on a standard route from Brazil to Europe, according to preliminary studies by the company.