Is the Food Versus Biofuels Contraversy Real or a Fallacy?

ABSTRACT This paper's primary aim is to assess the main contentious issues of the food versus biofuels (FvF) debate. It challenges the view of those speaking out against biofuels that they are a threat to food production. The controversy has been lingering for decades. To disprove this argument, the paper examines the key areas of potential negative impacts: (i) competition with food crops; (ii) impacts of biofuels on land use; (iii) the use of food for feed; (iv) huge food waste; (v) and food prices. Also, briefly, the rapid deployment of the electric vehicle. The environmental impacts/benefits of biofuels are widely discussed in this special issue and would not be covered. Suffice to say that on balance, it is clear that the environmental benefits far outweigh potential pitfalls. In order to arrive at any conclusion, it is important to understand the current and future development of biofuels within the energy trends and how this is shaping, and will shape, directly or indirectly, the future direction of biofuels. It is concluded that biofuels do not constitute any direct threat to food production and hence it is it a fallacy to think otherwise. There are other more serious threats to food production such as climate change, agricultural neglect, consumer's behavior or food waste. The potential negative impacts of biofuels are small and localized. Biofuels objectors' argument are not convincing, as their arguments are not fully backup by scientific data. On balance, the potential negative impacts of biofuels are outweighed by their benefits.