Corn

Latest story

113 Shares199 Views

Russian Attack Threatens Even Alternative Routes for Ukrainian Grain

by

The attack on a grain hangar on the Danube River, an alternative export route that has become an economic lifeline, complicates Ukraine’s efforts to export its grain.For shipping companies looking for a way to bring Ukrainian grain to global markets, the options keep dwindling, escalating a trade crisis that is expected to add pressure on global food prices.Russia last week pulled out of an agreement that had allowed for the safe passage of vessels through the Black Sea. On Monday it threatened an alternative route for grain, attacking a grain hangar at a Ukrainian port on the Danube River that has served as a key artery for transporting goods while the Black Sea remains blockaded. “It’s opening a new front in the targeting of Ukrainian grain exports,” said Alexis Ellender, an analyst at Kpler, a commodities analytics firm, adding that the route had been considered safe because of its proximity to Romania, a NATO member.“This will potentially close off that route,” he said. It could also raise rates for shipping insurance and further cripple Ukraine’s ability to export grain.Hours after the predawn attack on the hangar at the Ukrainian port of Reni, dozens of vessels that had been bound to collect grain from Ukraine were clustered at the mouth of the Danube. More

More stories

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. to Challenge Mexican Ban on Genetically Modified Corn

    by

    The Biden administration said it would request talks with Mexico over a brewing trade fight.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration said on Monday that it would take initial steps toward challenging a ban that Mexico has placed on shipments of genetically modified corn from the United States, restrictions that have rankled farmers and threatened a profitable export.Mexico has planned to phase out the use of genetically modified corn, as well as an herbicide called glyphosate, by 2024. About 90 percent of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified.Senior administration officials have expressed concerns to the Mexican government about the measures for more than a year in virtual and in-person meetings, saying they could disrupt millions of dollars of agricultural trade and cause serious harm to U.S. producers. Mexico is the second-largest market for U.S. corn, after China.On Monday, U.S. officials said that they were requesting consultations over the issue with their Mexican counterparts under the terms of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which governs the terms of trade in North America. Biden officials said that parties to that agreement, which was signed in 2020, had committed to basing their regulation on scientific research, and that Mexico’s ban on genetically modified corn did not conform to those promises.The consultations are the first step in a process that could lead to the United States bringing a formal dispute against Mexico. The parties must meet to discuss the issue within 30 days, and, if the talks are not successful, the United States could turn to a separate dispute settlement procedure under the trade agreement. That process could result in the United States placing tariffs on Mexican products, if no other resolution can be reached.Senior officials with the Office of the United States Trade Representative said they were focused on finding a resolution through the talks at hand. But in a statement, the office said that it would “consider all options, including taking formal steps to enforce U.S. rights under the U.S.M.C.A.” if the issue was not resolved.Mexico bought more than 20 million metric tons of corn from the United States in the 2021-22 marketing year, which runs from September to August, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.The National Corn Growers Association has said that the impending ban would be “catastrophic” for American corn producers and Mexican consumers alike and undermine the principles of the trade agreement. The industry has maintained that bioengineered corn is safe for human consumption, contrary to health concerns cited by Mexican officials.Scientists, too, widely believe that genetically modified foods are safe, but consumers and Mexican officials remain wary of genetically modified crops.In a statement on Monday, the Mexican Ministry of Economy said its decree was aimed at ensuring that tortillas are made with native Mexican corn varieties, in an effort to ensure the biodiversity of the corn that is grown in the country. It said it would draw on data and evidence to demonstrate that the ban had not had an impact on commerce, and was consistent with the trade agreement.In the United States, the vast majority of corn planted has been bioengineered to be resistant to herbicides and insects. Bt corn, for example, contains a gene from a soil bacterium that kills the European corn borer, an insect that feeds on maize and other grasses.Corn can also be modified to be resistant to glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in agriculture and lawn maintenance in the United States. Glyphosate-based products like Roundup are sprayed on fields, killing weeds and leaving the resistant crops intact.While the Environmental Protection Agency has said the herbicides pose no risk to human health, overuse can wreak ecological havoc in areas where natural plant species are not resistant to the chemical compound. Environmental groups have warned that glyphosate can be particularly deadly for pollinators like bees and butterflies.It is illegal to grow genetically modified corn in Mexico, where maize was first domesticated 8,700 years ago and where white corn is a staple crop. Supporters of Mexico’s ban worry that any imports of bioengineered corn would threaten native species, as the varieties can cross-pollinate.The Mexican government in February moved to soften its restrictions, saying it would allow genetically modified corn to be brought into the country for animal feed and industrial use, though not for human consumption. Tom Vilsack, the U.S. agriculture secretary, said he was “disappointed” in the decision.It also remains to be seen whether domestic corn production in Mexico is sufficient to replace imports, the eventual goal of the Mexican government. Last year, farmers in Mexico grew 27.3 million metric tons, about 38 percent below domestic demand. One analysis projected that, should the ban remain in place, corn costs could rise by 20 percent in Mexico and increase rates of food insecurity. More

  • 150 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Air Force Says Proposed Chinese-Owned Mill in North Dakota Is ‘Significant Threat’

    by

    A proposal for a corn mill, which had been welcomed as an economic development success, reflects just how much things have changed with Chinese investment proposals in the U.S.After more than a year of debate about whether a Chinese company’s plan to build a corn mill in North Dakota was an economic boon or a geopolitical risk, an assistant secretary of the Air Force has weighed in with a warning that the “project presents a significant threat to national security.”The letter from Assistant Secretary Andrew P. Hunter, released publicly on Tuesday by North Dakota’s senators, noted the proximity of Grand Forks Air Force Base to the proposed mill and said the project raised “near- and long-term risks of significant impacts to our operations in the area.”The debate over Fufeng USA’s plan to build a giant milling facility on the edge of Grand Forks, less than 15 miles from the Air Force base, divided the Republican power structure in North Dakota and showed just how swiftly the economic relationship between the United States and China had changed.Though the Air Force letter did not name specific threats, residents had voiced numerous concerns. Some in town said it was unwise to deepen economic ties with China, while others speculated that the mill could be used for spying on the Air Force, which the company denied.The city’s Republican mayor, Brandon Bochenski, a former supporter of the project, said on Tuesday that because of the federal guidance, he would move to block construction by trying to deny building permits and by refusing to connect city infrastructure to the building site.More on U.S. Armed ForcesKorean War Wall of Remembrance: Many names of American service members who died in the conflict are misspelled or missing from the new memorial wall in Washington, relatives and researchers say.Parental Leave: The Pentagon announced a new policy that would double the amount of leave that is available to military service members.Defense Bill: Congress passed a $858 billion defense bill that would rescind the coronavirus vaccine mandate for troops and increase the defense budget $45 billion over President Biden’s request.A Boost for the N.R.A.: Instructors in military-sponsored J.R.O.T.C. classes have offered to promote the gun rights organization in high schools in exchange for money for their marksmanship programs.“The Air Force left ambiguity off the table,” the state’s two senators, John Hoeven and Kevin Cramer, both Republicans, said in a joint statement that called for Grand Forks officials to work with them “to find an American company to develop the agriculture project.”The corn mill was the sort of job-creating opportunity that cities have long fought over, and one that just a few years ago would have been seen by most as an unambiguous win. Both Mr. Bochenski and North Dakota’s Republican governor, Doug Burgum, celebrated in late 2021 when Grand Forks landed the project, which would have been the city’s largest economic development project in recent history.But within months after Fufeng chose Grand Forks, a college and military city with 59,000 residents, many in town began speaking out against the project. While some of the opposition focused on property rights and water use, the company’s ties to China and the perceived national security risks became the focus of pushback. Still, the city moved forward, annexing the field where the mill would be built and entering into a development agreement with the company.Mr. Bochenski, a first-term mayor and a former professional hockey player, said in an interview last year that the shifting geopolitical winds had been a challenge for the city. “Are we going to be the first one to basically say no to globalism?” he asked at the time.But on Tuesday, in light of the Air Force’s letter, Mr. Bochenski said he would seek the City Council’s help to block construction, though he noted that Fufeng USA, the American subsidiary of a Chinese company, would still own the land where it had hoped to build.Work on the project had been paused in recent months while the federal government’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviewed the company’s plans. That committee ultimately decided that it did not have jurisdiction.“The response from the federal government during this process can only be viewed as slow and contradictory,” Mr. Bochenski said. “This directive leaves open the question of other entities with Chinese connections across the nation,” he added, including a Chinese-owned aviation company in Grand Forks “and Chinese students and professors at the University of North Dakota.”Mr. Burgum, who once called the Fufeng mill a “huge opportunity” for his state, said in a statement that he supported the mayor’s decision to stop cooperating with the company given the concerns voiced by the Air Force.The turnabout in North Dakota comes as the United States rethinks its longstanding trade relationship with China, and as politicians in both parties have come to view the country more as a threat than as an attractive economic partner. Several states are considering bills this year that would limit or ban Chinese land ownership.Eric Chutorash, Fufeng USA’s chief operating officer, has repeatedly denied that the mill would be used to spy on or harm the United States. He did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the Air Force’s letter. China’s embassy in Washington declined to comment. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden to Allow Higher-Ethanol E15 Gas to Be Sold All Summer

    by

    WASHINGTON — President Biden announced on Tuesday a plan to suspend a ban on summertime sales of higher-ethanol gasoline blends, a move that White House officials said was aimed at reducing gas prices but that energy experts predicted would have only a marginal impact at the pump.The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a waiver that would allow the blend known as E15 — which is made of 15 percent ethanol — to be used between June 1 and Sept. 15. The White House estimated that approximately 2,300 stations in the country offer the blend and cast the decision as a move toward “energy independence.”“E15 is about 10 cents a gallon cheaper,” Mr. Biden said, speaking after taking a tour of a production facility that produces 150 million gallons of bioethanol annually. “And some gas stations offer an even bigger discount than that.”“When you have a choice, you have competition,” Mr. Biden added. “When you have competition, you have better prices.”The decision to lift the summertime ban comes as Mr. Biden faces growing pressure to bring down energy prices, which helped drive the fastest rate of inflation since 1981 in March. A gallon of gas was averaging $4.10 on Tuesday, according to AAA. Last month, the president announced a plan to release one million barrels of oil a day from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next six months.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: Times readers sent us their questions about rising prices. Top experts and economists weighed in.Interest Rates: As it seeks to curb inflation, the Federal Reserve announced that it was raising interest rates for the first time since 2018.How Americans Feel: We asked 2,200 people where they’ve noticed inflation. Many mentioned basic necessities, like food and gas.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.Ethanol is made from corn and other crops and has been mixed into some types of gasoline for years as a way to reduce reliance on oil. But the blend’s higher volatility can contribute to smog in warmer weather. For that reason, environmental groups have traditionally objected to lifting the summertime ban, as have oil companies, which fear greater use of ethanol will cut into their sales.How much the presence of ethanol holds down fuel prices has been a subject of debate among economists. Some experts said the decision was likely to reap larger political benefits than financial ones.“This is still very very small compared with the strategic petroleum reserve release,” said David Victor, a climate policy expert at the University of California, San Diego. “This one is much more of a transparently political move.”Lawmakers in corn-producing states have been urging Mr. Biden to use biofuels to fill the gap created by the United States ban on importing Russian oil. Oil refiners are required to blend some ethanol into gasoline under a pair of laws, passed in 2005 and 2007, intended to reduce the use of oil and the creation of greenhouse gases by mandating increased levels of ethanol in the nation’s fuel mix every year. However, since passage of the 2007 law, the mandate has been met with criticism that it has contributed to increased fuel prices and has done little to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More