Central America is the home of maize. The crop first grew there and it is the staple food of millions of people. Apart from the corn on the cob familiar to people in Europe, it is used in wonderful dishes like tamales, which are produced in different colours and flavours, or the staple tortillas, which accompany every meal.

Maize has also sustained life across the US for centuries. For the poor, maize is the difference between life and starvation. Like any food staple, the price is crucial. A slight rise can make all the difference. For many years in Mexico, the price of tortillas stood at six pesos per kilo. But, in January, market speculation in maize forced the price temporarily up to 18 per kilo.

Massive protests forced intervention into the markets and the price is now around 8.5 pesos per kilo, which still represents a huge rise on last year. In Guatemala, prices are 37 per cent up on a year ago. In fact, it's the same story across the continent.

The consequences of price rises in maize are catastrophic for millions of people across Latin America. It has become the biggest single political issue, as pro-free market governments like that of Felipe Calderon in Mexico are loath to tackle "market forces."

The mass demonstrations held by poor people in response to the rises have been barely reported by the world's media. With the current exchange rate standing at around 22 pesos to the pound, journalists don't seem to be able to comprehend how a few extra pesos can make such a difference.

The price rises have nothing to do with weather or climate, but are down to political decisions made thousands of miles away.

In his State of the Union address in 2006, President Bush announced, to loud congressional applause, that he could see a time when the US would no longer be dependent on Middle Eastern or any other imported oil.

The US feels that its global war on terror has not made it more energy secure, but quite the opposite. Bush hates the fact that the US is forced to import huge quantities of oil from Venezuela. His administration is also concerned that the US is frequently being outbid by China in the oil futures war.

In an attempt to deal with this problem, Bush ventured into rare territory for a neoconservative, citing concern for the environment. He announced that the US would dramatically increase its production of corn ethanol for use as an additive to petrol, reducing the country's reliance on fossil fuels. The plan is to unleash a gold rush of federal subsidies to promote new technologies.

Rather too hastily, many progressive and environmental groups in the US welcomed this change of heart by Bush and, for a while, flattering comparisons with St Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus were made. Suddenly, it appears as if all the famous US interest groups - big business, farmers and defence ideologues - have been brought together for a common cause.

Corn ethanol is produced from maize and currently accounts for about 3 per cent of US transport fuels. The plan to increase US maize production by 25 per cent per year is already having huge consequences south of the Rio Grande. As US prices rise in anticipation of the new level of demand, big farmers are exporting their crops to the north.

The shortages that this has created in Mexico have pushed up prices there and across Latin America. In his regular TV broadcast last week the "legitimate" Mexican president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador challenged the Calderon's free-market government to do something to
protect the poor. Accompanied by film and cartoon clips, Obrador powerfully pointed out that minimum wages have not risen, although basic food costs have.

The Mexican media often ignore much of reality of life. Obrador, who is in the process of an exhausting national tour visiting every one of over 2,500 municipalities in his vast country, is leading a very powerful political force in this issue.

The last national democratic convention of more than a million people in Mexico City in March reached fever pitch over this issue. Maize is one area where market forces work to reduce the life chances of the poor and boost the coffers of big business. But there are beneficiaries of the Bush administration's plans. Biotech giant Monsanto is the largest winner from US government subsidies for ethanol production totalling $5.5bn.

Environmentalists claim that it is a clean fuel that reduces pollution. While this is true when it is finally burnt in a vehicle, this is far from the whole story. In fact, it's more a case of transferring environmental pollution from the streets of north American cities to the poor barrios of Latin America.

The environmental impact of the production process is far-reaching. Mexican activist Ana de Ita has calculated that it requires 2.5kg of maize to produce one litre of ethanol, consuming four litres of water in the process and generating 0.5kg of carbon.

Vast tracts of marginal land will be turned over to maize production in Central America, while the hapless poor cannot afford their own produce.

Further south, in Brazil, the potential consequences are even greater. Controversially, the government of Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva has entered into an agreement with the US to increase ethanol production from sugar cane and other cellulose-rich plants. The aim is to raise production
from the current level of 17.3 billion litres twelvefold, by over 200 per cent per year.

Brazilian fuel alcohol requires huge quantities of water for its manufacture. More rainforest will be destroyed to create monoculture farms owned by big business interests. This is despite all the claims and assurances that the rate of depletion of the Amazon rainforest is slowing.

The inescapable fact is that the lifestyles of the better off in the US are 20 times more damaging to the environment than, for example, the people of Bangladesh.

The main motive behind this upheaval is the US fear of a future world where it does not control energy supplies and where its fuel-guzzling culture is threatened.

Bush seems to think that he has squared the circle of appearing to care for the environment and defending the famed US way of life where its citizens consume the most energy of anyone on the planet.

But the only really effective way to protect the environment is to produce and use less while ensuring that everyone eats and can live.

The consequences of the planned transfer to biofuels will go way beyond Latin America. In the US, most maize is used for animal feed. A rise in maize prices means a rise in meat prices. Europe is not far behind the US. The European Union is also promoting an increase in ethanol
production as a way of creating energy security and proclaiming its green credentials at the same time.

The real issue is the imbalance of power and consumption across the world.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro called the use of food for fuel "sinister." Ironically, from the perspective of being concerned at the political effects of all this, The Economist agreed with him.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North. He can be contacted at corbynj@parliament.uk

http://premium-pmcg28zxbm61gj.uk.clickandbuy.com/
news/content/pdf/44179