EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

US and EU must change biofuel targets to avert food crisis, says Nestlé chief

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 04 September 2012, updated 05 September 2012

Nestlé, the world's largest food company, has added its weight to calls by the UN and development groups for the US and EU to change their biofuel targets because of looming food shortages and price rises.

"We say no food for fuel," said Paul Bulcke, chief executive of Nestlé, at the end of the World Water Week conference in Sweden. "Agricultural food-based biofuel is an aberration. We say that the EU and US should put money behind the right biofuels."

Under laws intended to reduce foreign oil imports, 40% of US maize (corn) harvest must be used to make biofuels, even though one of the deepest droughts in the past 100 years is expected to reduce crop yields significantly. In addition, EU countries are expected to move towards drawing 10-20% of their energy supply for transport from biofuels to reduce carbon emissions.

But Nestlé, which has 470 food factories around the world and 25% of the world's bottled water market, says clean economy and US energy independence should not be pursued at the expense of food supplies or massive price increases.

"[Using biofuels] was well-intentioned at the time, but when you have better information then you have to be coherent," said Bulcke. "You have to know when to say: 'Stop here'. Now we see, too, that the carbon [reduction] element of biofuels is not as clear as it was intended to be."

Bulcke said Nestlé had lobbied the US and EU governments to change their quotas. "We have said [it] to [the] US government, but politically it's hard. We are an important food company and, yes, we do have a voice. We try to be vocal with our convictions."

He argued water is the world's coming crisis because, without better use of it, food supplies – which the UN predicts must increase around 50% in the next 40 years – will be severely limited.

"The relationship between food and water is clear," said Bulcke. "Water should have a value. There is so much much waste in the system. Upstream on farms, industry, food waste, food spoilage. Agriculture is responsible for 70% of all water being used globally, and 90% in some developing countries." Water is one cause of the food crisis. Governments took their eyes off the ball. For years, research and development investments were very low, at 1.5% annually. We have a crisis in the making. We cannot continue to use water in the same wasteful way as before.

"What is environmentally unsustainable today will become socially unsustainable in a not so distant future," added Bulcke. "We risk up to 30% shortfalls in global cereal production due to water shortage by 2025. It seems as if we will have to go through a massive global crisis before becoming aware that we cannot leave a paradox of this importance unresolved.

"The main challenge – water for farming – is also the main opportunity. Saving potentials in agriculture are still huge; physiological needs of plants amount to only 40-50% of actual withdrawals today. And there are more savings of water possible further down the value chain."

According to Nestlé, which operates in 86 countries and is the world's most profitable corporation, it is moving strongly to conserve water, both by helping farmers save waste by growing crops that need less, and by improving factory efficiency. It has also lowered its milk wastage dramatically, effectively saving its per-dollar water use, which has been reduced from 4.5 litres in 2002 to 1.5 litres today.

Earlier this month, UN FAO director general José Graziano da Silva said suspension of the biofuel quota would allow more of the crop to be diverted for food production. "The worst drought for 50 years is inflicting huge damage on the US maize crop, with serious consequences for the overall international food supply," he wrote in the Financial Times.

John Vidal for the Guardian, part of the Guardian Environment Network

COMMENTS

  • 2008 all over again:

    Food manufacturers use ethanol/biofuels as a scapegoat to raise prices. Then report record profits. Consumers are so gullible.

    By :
    ej
    - Posted on :
    04/09/2012
  • Not so ej.

    The wholesome diversion of Food Crops and Food Growing Crop Lands to grow the Raw Materials to make Biofuels - in deferment for Food Production is a serious issue. It expamds the uses ofthe Raw Materials so that Farmers (and Farming Communities) elect to seek to maximise their revenues from the sale of such materials to the highest bidder. When this therefore means that the bidders choose to buy such raw materials for the manufacture of biofuels the requiremeent is for subsidies to make the growing of Food Crops commercially viable. This is the chasing of subsidies which has resulted in Food Prices increase. Unfortunately - as you will know - when there are different weather or seasinal interferences with these crops and the yields drop the dichotomy of demand that has been established beforehand means that the wealest link in the purchgasing scene suffers. So because the Food Crop prices increase and they are at the mercy of the Commodity Exchanges (the Financial Institutions and Banking Fraternity that continually wreak havoc with the economies of the World) with the result that those countries/communities that spend over 50% of their income on Grains for Food are very susceptible to any price rise. The Western Nations (so called caring Nations) can accept such a buffer in their Food Prices because they have other choices to spend money on, but these communities do not.
    The issue raised yet again here is that making Biofuels from Food Crops is not the way forward.

    By :
    Karel
    - Posted on :
    05/09/2012
  • Hmmm...

    The biggest bottled water marketeer with huge profits from that business turns against biofuels to protect its water resources and high margins - and low prices for agri feedstocks purchase???

    It would be much more trustworthy if Nestlé would spend a few 100 millions annually to improve the situation - education for farmer, invest in 2dd / 3rd generation biofuels and bioplastic. we need an integrated biomass utilization concept which tackles all the needs. and we need food, deed, fuel and materials from renewables in the future.

    spend 5% of your net gains, nestlé, and I will applaud to you.

    By :
    kaeb
    - Posted on :
    07/09/2012
  • Presumably then as the Nestle team are making this headway and wish they would care to make contacts with the genesyst uk company we saw recently active in pursuing making ethanol from non-food crops and in particular waste. Their positioning in this area has hit the right targets with their Managing Director positiong the Company both in the Uk and in the MENA area where the issues about Non-Food sources of organic materials with a particular interest in discarded materials.

    By :
    Carol
    - Posted on :
    07/09/2012
  • If bio-fules actually delivered more energy than it takes to produce them, farmers, universities and businesses would all be energy self sufficient and would be flooding the market with cheap biofuels. Think about it: if it were possible to produce 2 GJ of ethanol from 1 GJ of energy, we would be able to use the 2 GJ of ethanol to produce 4 GJ of ethanol, then use that to produce 8 GJ etc. etc. Obviously this is not possible, or people would be doing it right now.

    In fact, it takes more than 1 GJ of energy to produce 1 GJ of any bio-fuel, so using bio-fuels actually INCREASES the amount of oil and other conventional hydrocarbons burned!! How can intelligent people not see this?

    If you think I'm wrong, try doing it yourself, or ask the bio-fuel pushers why they aren't doing it. The prize would be an endless supply of almost free energy! The fact that bio-fuel production is highly subsidized in every nation is proof that bio-fuels do NOT deliver more energy than is required to produce them. Using more energy increases, not decreases emissions and fossil fuel consumption. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

    By :
    Geoff Sander
    - Posted on :
    09/09/2012
  • US-citizens have a particular throw away mentality for non-consumed foodstuff. if all organic waste would be used for gasification including allother agricultural waste a huge source for energy would be mobilised and could replace the crops plated only for energy production. If the US Government wold subsidise organic waste utilisationas is doen for crop production a new decentralized energy industry could be installed with many jobs.

    By :
    Frank Schweizer
    - Posted on :
    10/09/2012
  • 2. comment adressed to Nestle: How much organic waste from the Nestle factories are used in biogas plants to generate energy and how much is disposed of in landfills - worldwide- and in US in particular ?

    By :
    Frank Schweizer
    - Posted on :
    10/09/2012
  • Certainly Nestles have a bad reputation because it advocated it's own bottle feeding product of babies, which risks an increase in baby gastro-enteritis, which happened, when innocent mothers converted from breast feeding! To counter that disease and the diarrhoea it produced, Nestle advocated a drug that produced constipation. The result in some cases was perforation of the bowel and death of babies. I disgraceful abuse of human life.

    With regard to biofuels from good nutritious food, I find that absurd, and should not be allowed by governments. Palm oil is desperately important for vitamin A and therefore should be protected in order to counter the dietary deficiency in many communities. The natural environment is being destroyed to produce mono crops in SE Asia, for biofuels, not for food! Maize is a poor crop from the nutritional point of view and is less important. It should not be used as a staple food. Sadly much of southern Africa is dependent on it. Sugar cane for biofuels is more appropriate.

    By :
    Gordon Macpherson
    - Posted on :
    10/09/2012
  • These all happened because of Obama monetary policy as Ed Butowsky said in his post in Fox Business.

    By :
    Jesica
    - Posted on :
    12/09/2012
  • Not so, Jessica.

    This is just a money grabbimng series of Mega-Companies wanting to maximise their revenues from a loop-hole in EU taxation laws. This has been closed now and even more so the change in policy will restrict even further biofuels derived from food crops.

    Perhaps instead you should concentrate on the massive out-break of BSE in US Cattle and the fact that this is a danger to health. The EU has stringent rukles about importing this and it is over to you to rectify the position.

    By :
    Paul Huw
    - Posted on :
    04/10/2012
  • Not so, Paul.

    Four cases of BSE in the U.S. over nearly 10 years is not a "massive out-break" even for the most creative imaginations.

    By :
    ej
    - Posted on :
    04/10/2012

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

Energy Supply News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Energy Supply Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising