Between 2007 and 2008 there was a substantial increase in food prices worldwide, raising concerns about the difficulty of feeding a still-growing human population on the planet. The green revolution contradicted the Malthusian prediction providing an increase in food production. Indeed, the amount of food produced on the planet would be enough to feed everyone satisfactorily. However, there is a huge inequality in life conditions [1] and a waste of food, that cause many people to eat less than needed while others have overweight problems. On one hand, there are about 842 million underfed people [2], and on the other hand, there are around 1.4 billion obese people [3], reflecting the problem of distribution of wealth and food in the world. Increases in grain prices can make such inequality worse, and also can threaten more people with lack of accessibility, adequacy and availability of food [4].

Diesel is the basis of the mobility of goods and people. It’s price influences commodity prices, as it represents 35% of the road transport operating costs [5]. Biodiesel, among biofuels, is an alternative to partially replace of mineral diesel, requiring no substantial changes in engines [5]. In addition to helping decrease the mineral diesel consumption, it is an alternative to mitigate GHG emissions, as society is now getting increasingly concerned about the GHG emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. Indeed, biodiesel reduces pollutant emissions such as CO2, SO2, particulates and other greenhouse gases [6].

Biodiesel production has been rising on a regular basis since 2005 [7] competing in a market where fossil fuel derivatives dominate. The IPCC’s projection that biofuels would reach 3% of the energy supply [8] for transport sector was met in 2011 [9]. Therefore, it seems to be logical to investigate the relationship between the increase in food prices and biodiesel, since food, feed and biodiesel compete for the same oilseeds.

The discussion about the relationship between food prices and biofuel production has become intensified. Biodiesel, in particular, has been criticized as if it had worsened hunger and misery, and had caused land use change, deforestation and species extinction. All these reasons seem to be ethical arguments, in favour of planet health and of the protection of human dignity. However, those arguments have negatively affected the understanding of food and energy security, favouring the oil industry, without discussing the real reasons of hunger and poverty. Major institutions that can influence the global energy policies have incorporated such arguments, resulting in propositions of reducing biodiesel targets. These changes can preclude small farms, especially in developing countries, to participate in the energy market, reducing the possibility of social inclusion and poverty reduction. Some works have already analysed both themes. For example, Gasparatos et al. [10] analyse the works related to food security and energy security and conclude that biofuels’ effect on food security, particularly at the household and the local level, depends on the socioeconomic context of biofuel production and the policies in place during biofuel production and trade. Kgathi et al. [11] suggest that the production of biodiesel in Botswana would encourage farmers to increase food production in idle lands available in the country, instead of increasing the local food commodity prices. Popp [12] states that there is a future for a sustainable biofuels industry, as long as the feedstock production avoids encroaching on agricultural land. This can be achieved by choosing feedstocks that can grow on marginal land or matter such as wastes and residues that do not use up land. Ajanovic [13] said in 2011 that no significant impact of biofuels production on feedstock prices had been observed. Hence, a co-existence of biofuel and food production seems possible especially for second generation biofuels. However, sustainability criteria should be seriously considered. Abbott et al. [14] analysed how the increase in the Chinese demand of soybean is affecting food prices in 2011. They suggest three main causes: depreciation of the US dollar, changes in production and consumption standards, and growth in biofuels production. They also recognize the link between oil prices and food commodity prices, even though they focus their analysis on ethanol produced from corn. Koizumi [15] assumed that only non-food-based biofuel and cellulosic-based biofuel do not have a serious impact on food security on a country and sub-country level in China and Japan, because the amount of feedstock used for nonfood and cellulose-based biofuels is small. However, the author states the Chinese biofuel production may become a new agricultural investment to promote rural development and to increase income in poor areas.

The purpose of this article, based on updated data, is to confront and analyse arguments and contradictory positions, seeking a balance between them, discussing the real biodiesel role in food and energy security. From those work, none of them analyse food (and hunger), biodiesel production and its feedstock, and mineral diesel. This work aims to cover this gap, bringing in three main contributions. The first is to show that the correlation between food commodity prices and biodiesel production happens because they are linked in the international commodity market, which depend much on oil prices. The second is to show that, besides biodiesel being produced from by-products that do not occupy land at all, there are other choices to produce biodiesel without competing for land assigned for food production. The last is to show evidence of bad distribution of food and income, which can be softened by stimulating the production of biodiesel feedstock in countries at low latitude.

To clarify the relationship between food security and energy security, a careful review was conducted of published articles and reports produced by international organizations, especially those produced after 2008, when the debate was strongly entrenched. Reports and data from international institutions and agencies, such as:

• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);

• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD);

• World Bank;

• US Department of Agriculture (USDA);

• International Energy Agency (IEA);

were used, besides scientific works.

Indicators and data available on the main issues addressed in those publications were analysed, based on the arguments against and in favour of the cause-effect relationship between biofuels production and commodity prices. As much as possible, the analysis of biodiesel production and the feedstock used were pointed out as the main subject of interest in this work, because ethanol and biodiesel have different feedstock and markets, and they replace different fuels. In addition, alternative ways to produce biodiesel were identified, considering the options for type of land and oilseed used to produce biodiesel.

Quite often, historical series of data before 2008 were required to identify trends and/or correlations between variables. These data were updated and tracked on the available sources. Information and data from institutions with international credibility and universal acceptance were used in order to avoid sectoral biases. Results of quantitative and qualitative studies already conducted and published were searched. However, it does not mean concordance with the results found in such studies.

The analysis is based is on the hypothesis that sustainable development is committed to ecological wisdom, social inclusion and economic efficiency, besides being supported by institutional sustainability.

Food security means to have access to food of enough quality to ensure good health, access to drinking water, and respect for cultural traditions in food [4].

A sufficient amount of food to feed everyone in the world is produced. However, as the distribution is unequal, part of world population goes hungry. The highest rates of malnutrition [16] coincide with the areas of greatest poverty [17], which are predominantly in some African and Asian regions. Food commodities are the ones that, despite different menus, cultures and geographical locations, are internationally known and consumed [18].

The significant increase in prices of food commodities during 2007-2008 gave rise to studies trying to identify the causes, often taking the analysis back in time to better understanding the phenomenon comparing to other seasons. In Figure 1, it is possible to see together the food prices and biodiesel production.

Figure 1.

Biodiesel production versus food price indices

According to Mitchell [22], the energy prices in 2005–2008 have caused higher transportation cost, stimulated the production of biofuels and encouraged policy support for biofuels production. Consequently, biofuels production has not only increased the demand for food commodities (for instance maize and soybean), but also led to land use changes. This reduced the production of wheat and other grains, causing a reduction of stocks [22]. The direct result was the weakening of the ability to cope with other events that affect the price of commodities, such as climate change and currency fluctuations. Thus, from 2002 to 2008 the traded food commodity prices increased 130%, led by grains [22]. Especially for biofuel grains, from 2005 to 2008, the prices increased more than this magnitude. For example, maize prices almost tripled while wheat prices increased by 127%. Oils prices have also increased at the same level. The prices of palm oil and soybean, which are used to produce biodiese^†, increased by up to 200% and 192% respectively [22]. The increase in food prices, especially oilseeds [23], on the international market followed the increase in biodiesel production [24] (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Comparison of agricultural commodities prices and biodiesel production

In short, the increase in energy prices had direct and indirect effects on the abnormal increase in commodity prices. The direct effects were on increasing the inputs and transport prices; indirect effects were through encouraging the production of biofuels. The grain production for food and feed was displaced by biofuel production [22]. However, the dynamic was different for each commodity, which led to analyse separately bioethanol from biodiesel. Maize production grew by 70% between 2004 and 2007, not for food production, but ethanol – which today consumes 65% of maize produced in USA [22]. This growth, particularly in the U.S., resulted in a decrease in soybean area, reducing soybean production and, of course, contributing to raise soybean prices between April 2007–2008 [16]. As an exception, Brazilian ethanol - made from sugarcane – did not contribute to the recent increase in food commodity prices, because Brazilian sugarcane production had increased before 2007 and sugar exports have nearly tripled since 2000 [22]. The most important factor for the rapid rise in food prices was the increased production of biofuels in US and EU [22].

In global road-transport, the use of liquid biofuels accounted for 3% of fuel demand in 2013 [7]. The use of renewable energy has grown in absolute numbers, but not in its contribution to the global energy mix. In 2006 it accounted for 18%, and in 2010 for 16.7% [7]. Nevertheless, investments went from USD 63 billion in 2006 to USD 257 billion in 2011 [19].

According to Cushion et al. [25], as production of most biofuel feedstocks are strongly oriented toward exports, the impact of the bioenergy developments can cause general increase in global commodity prices. Biofuel production is causing land use change, soil degradation, deforestation and loss of biodiversity [25]. Moreover, the poor who have to cut their consumption of food, exposing themselves to the risk of malnutrition and malnourishment, felt the greatest effect of the increase of prices [26].

Indeed, the impact of the 2007-2008 price spike on household access to food would have been on two factors: the degree to which the international price was transmitted to domestic markets and how people’s incomes and expenditures were affected by domestic price changes, and then how they responded to it [26]. The transmission of the prices to the domestic market can be quite different, depending on the internal trade policy of each country [26]. Therefore, it would be necessary to analyse each case separately.

FAO estimates that the volatility of food prices may continue with the rise of biofuel production because demand for food will increase in economies that are growing faster [27]. The demand for food will probably increase by 60% by 2050, due to the global population growth. It means that the challenges will be bigger in areas with shortages of natural resources, especially in low latitudes of the planet that are already more exposed to climate changes [28]. Furthermore, economic growth means more demand for energy and higher prices for oil; the prices of inputs and transport will rise and, at the end, commodity prices will also rise [22]. Hence, when the price of oil increases, the demand for biofuels also increases [27] affecting the food prices. Here are the ingredients for the intensification of inequalities in distribution of food and income, and also for worsening of the relationship between oil producing countries and oil consuming countries.

According to FAO, biofuels will be only a small portion of the consumption of fossil energy over the next decade, but will bring much bigger impacts on agriculture and food security, especially for the poorest countries that depend on food imports [29]. Any diversion of land from food production or animal feed to produce biomass for energy will influence food prices since both compete for the same inputs [24].

Therefore, the recommendations are to slow down the replacement targets of mineral diesel by biodiesel, and to reformulate policies for production and use of biofuels, in order to decrease the replacement targets in the United States (US) and European Union (EU). Moreover, Mitchell [22] and Gallagher [23] suggest a land use control system in potential producer countries, which seems to be a strong commercial barrier. The reduction from 20% to 10% was suggested to the Directive 2009/28/EC which stipulates that 20% of consumed energy in transport in 2020 must be renewable [22].

Energy security is related to having access to energy sources at reasonable prices for the functioning of the economy. It is directly related to internal and external security of the nations, as energy is essential for transport, communication, production and preservation of food, and health services, among others. Improving energy security involves the diversification of energy sources, mitigating the risks associated with reliance on a single source and promoting economic stability of nations.

The sources of primary energy have been coal, gas, oil, nuclear power, hydroelectricity and biomass. The oil consumption had the highest share, 33% in 2013 [30] (Figure 3). Of these, approximately one-third can be refined into diesel.

Figure 3.

Global primary energy mix in Millions of Tonnes of Oil Equivalent (MTOE)

The peak of conventional oil production may have already happened, whereas the volume of replenishment has been smaller than consumption. From 2005 to 2010, less than a half barrel, for each one consumed, was added to proven reserves, with clear consequences on oil price volatility (Figure 4). However, in 2011, the high prices of the oil turned economically viable some unconventional petroleum deposits like oil sands and deep water oil. Also, they make viable technologies such as fracking, both in oil shale and conventional wells, increasing the recovery factor from 70% to 90% in the conventional wells [31]. The impact on aquifers, the waste disposal and even the seismic stability of the geological formations exploited with fracking, are not yet very clear and have been subject of discussions, accidents and conflicts. To make things worse, fossil fuels are considered one of the worst culprits of global warming. If all these issues were perceived as threats to the oil industry, it is natural that barriers to the entrance of the substitute products such as biofuels will be created by the oil industry.

Figure 4.

Number of barrels of oil added to proven reserves for every barrel consumed and the average annual price of oil

Considering the demand side, either by the exhaustion of oil or owing to the continuous rise in price, oil dependence is a constant threat to the economic stability of the countries. That dependence becomes even more critical if we consider that the reserves are concentrated in a few places on the planet and the oil supply involves the internal and regional policy of oil-producing countries. Moreover, the cost of fossil fuel subsidies are economically unbearable, reaching USD 544 million in 2012, which can turn to USD 2 trillion if tax losses are included [32]. In addition to economic aspects, in 2010, there were 6.7 Gt CO₂ emission due to transport sector, with the possibility to double by 2050 [8]. It is estimated that more than 3 million deaths /year occurs due to vehicle pollution [33]. Summing up, the society finances a fuel that brings diseases, death, financial losses [33], welfare decrease, and threats to energy security.

Any source of energy that can be a replacement for oil contributes to decrease oil dependency. However, some of the sources depend on seasonal natural resources (hydro, wind and solar energy), others have strong civil opposition (nuclear), and not all of them can be stored.

Biodiesel and other biofuels (bioethanol and biokerosene) are possible replacements to oil: they can be used in transport and also generate electricity. Besides that, comparing to mineral diesel, biodiesel reduces emissions of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulphates, aromatic compounds and particulate material [6]. Biodiesel decreases almost 15% of CO₂ emissions when it is used up to 20% (B20), reduces SO₂ emissions compared to mineral diesel, and improves injection pump lubrication [9]. Even though biodiesel does not help in reducing NO_X [9], it has unquestionable advantages over mineral diesel, for improving the quality of life in urban centres.

Biodiesel can be produced from castor oil, palm oil, soybean, rapeseed, sunflower, jatropha, thistle seed, seaweed, waste cooking oils and animal fats, among other feedstock. Most of these crops grow easily in tropical and subtropical climates [35], exactly where the poorest countries are, even though it depends on appropriate topographical, climatic and edaphic conditions, and water availability. Anyway, these conditions can be found in various places, unlike oil reserves, which have a specific geological location. All these issues: storage, electricity generation, transport, reduction of pollutant emissions and the possibility of production in various parts of the globe have favoured the increase of biofuel production in the last decade (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Global production of biofuels from 2000 to 2013

Replacing 20% of mineral diesel by biodiesel would help to reduce the reliance on oil and, consequently would enhance the energy security.

Despite the efforts spent by those interested in the issue, it has not been possible to ensure that the growing biodiesel production has been such an important cause of the increase in food commodity prices. Demand for food is increasing, the stocks are not. It will easily result in rise of food prices. Moreover, food prices are influenced by a set of conditions, including oil prices. The correlations found and the analysis show the inconsistency of stating that biodiesel production or any biofuel production has been responsible for increasing the food commodity prices. Moreover, those prices did not result in worsening the hunger in the world. World hunger is much older than the biofuel production. It has no relation to the global production of food, or to biodiesel production, or even to the international food prices. It is more likely that hunger does have a relationship with unequal distribution of the food produced, poverty and how each country is linked to the global market.

The competition between food and biodiesel for land can be irrelevant. The wasted food has occupied much more land than the biodiesel crops. Besides, several oilseeds can grow in marginal and degraded land helping to recover land and capture CO2. Others produce protein (much more than oil) that can be used for food and feed. They can be produced in low latitudes where there are more social and economic vulnerabilities. Therefore, biodiesel can help raise the income of these populations, and consequently, it indirectly improves the access to food.

Nevertheless, the recorded increase of food price in 2007-2008 still reverberates today, strengthening the recommendations for reducing biofuel expansion goals. These positions find adherence in the European Union, the largest independent market for biodiesel. In addition to that, the financial crisis might have aided that important sectors of society supported the revision of mandatory targets. Such decisions have created uncertainties that contaminated all environmental policy. As a result, these changes in the biofuel mandates might have cancelled the vector of sustainable regional development in developing countries, which would have been benefited by the production and exporting of vegetable oil. This feedstock would be destined to the EU to meet the biodiesel market needs and, therefore, help to reach the reduction targets of CO₂ emissions.

The debate brought by the simultaneity between increases in food prices and biofuels production can be seen as a good opportunity to consider food and energy security together. A deeper look into the two issues, and a consistent analysis over history, can reveal a unique opportunity for the developing countries to improve the economic and social situation, since it be well conducted by local governments. The integration of some portion of the poorest populations in agricultural bioenergy production chain can promote social inclusion and enhance the life conditions in the countryside. In addition, biodiesel can help mitigating the effects of global warming and weaken the influence of oil geopolitics in global political instability. This approach is crucial to guide public policies for African, Asian and Latin-American countries, among others, which live with food and energy insecurity simultaneously.

In conclusion, stopping the production of biodiesel will not solve the hunger problem, but will worsen environmental conditions. Biodiesel is ready to be used without changes in the engines, replacing mineral diesel, reducing most of the emissions, and contributing to energy security. It can provide integrated solutions for environment, energy, social security and food in particular, when it is produced from the by product. Maybe it will not be a complete solution, but certainly is already a safe bridge for a new sustainable economy. Of course, as much as other renewable sources, it strongly depends on good policies that can address land tenure, supply and demand needs, R&D support and sustainable production. To leave biodiesel production to the “invisible hand” of the market is to be in favour of the oil industry and condemn a good solution to an early death.