<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"></BLOCKQUOTE>Doug says:<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">US corn yields per hectare were 10.07 tonnes, more than twice the world average (and up considerably from your 8.0 number from 1988). </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV> </DIV><DIV>According to the National Corn Growers Association ("The World of Corn 2005," <<A href="http://ncga.com/WorldOfCorn/main/consumptionData.htm">http://ncga.com/WorldOfCorn/main/consumptionData.htm</A>>), 56% of the total US corn production goes to livestock feed, 13% to ethanol, and 5% to HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup). In contrast, in Mexico, "68% of all corn is directly used as food" (Alejandro Nadal and Timothy A. Wise, "The Environmental Costs of Agricultural Trade Liberalization: Mexico-U.S. Maize Trade Under NAFTA," Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas Discussion Paper Number 4, <<A href="http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/DP04NadalWiseJuly04.pdf">http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/DP04NadalWiseJuly04.pdf</A>>, June 2004, p. 4). Therefore, one might argue that the Mexican pattern of production and consumption of corn is better (i.e., healthier and more energy-efficient) for human beings and the environment than the US pattern.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Moreover, "[c]orn is one of the most heavily subsidized crops in the United States, with subsidies accounting for some 46% of farm income in the sector" (Nadal and Wise, p. 15). A single-minded pursuit of higher and higher yields, in the context of constant overproduction of the crop, doesn't really make sense. US taxpayers are subsidizing this economically senseless behavior only to destroy subsistence farmers in Mexico and other countries (18% of US corn gets exported), to fatten the ethanol lobby (who do nothing to curb the ravenous US appetite for fossil fuels), and to make more and more working-class Americans obese and sick.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV><blockquote>By far the best strategy for keeping zea mays in business has been the development of high-fructose corn syrup, which has all but pushed sugar aside. Since the 1980's, most soft drink manufacturers have switched from sugar to corn sweeteners, as have most snack makers. Nearly 10 percent of the calories Americans consume now come from corn sweeteners; the figure is 20 percent for many children. Add to that all the corn-based animal protein (corn-fed beef, chicken and pork) and the corn qua corn (chips, muffins, sweet corn) and you have a plant that has become one of nature's greatest success stories, by turning us (along with several other equally unwitting species) into an expanding race of corn eaters.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">(Michael Pollan, "When a Crop Becomes King," NYT, July 19, 2002, <<A href="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0719-01.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0719-01.htm</A>>)</blockquote></DIV><DIV></DIV><DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Yoshie Furuhashi</DIV><DIV><<A href="http://montages.blogspot.com">http://montages.blogspot.com</A>></DIV><DIV><<A href="http://mrzine.org">http://mrzine.org</A>></DIV><DIV><<A href="http://monthlyreview.org">http://monthlyreview.org</A>></DIV> </DIV> </DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>