Quantcast
Welcome Guest  —  No members and 190 guests online
WELCOME TO THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COMMUNITY
Please join the conversation!

Feel free to explore the site and create an account (click on "Log In" on the upper right hand side).

Uncover cool stories and news and participate in lively discussion that will force you to think.

Be inspired, launch a blog, and stake your place in the realm of the new, new media.
Sciam Observations
Last year there were two trillion stalks of corn in Iowa, and a lot of it went to corn syrup

In the year 2000, the average American consumed 73 pounds of corn syrup.


King Corn, which, depending on where you live, is coming to a theater near you sometime this fall, is the story of two guys who decided to find out what would happen if they moved to Iowa, grew an acre of corn, and traced its path through the giant metabolic engine that is the American food system.

Unsurprisingly, the plot resembles the path that Michael Pollan traced in his seminal doorstop The Omnivore's Dilemma, with two important differences:

1. King Corn is a movie, so it's relatively short and accessible

2. King Corn is surprisingly funny

I don't know if this film is going to get as wide a distribution as Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me, but it certainly deserves to.

In fact, this is probably one of those movies that should be required viewing in just about every classroom in America.

Spoiler alert: Here's what you'll learn from King Corn.

(All this data comes straight from the movie, so take it with a grain of salt; I haven't had time to fact-check it.)

* Those amber waves of grain (or corn) you see rushing past your window on roadtrips? You wouldn't want to eat that corn. The overwhelming majority of corn grown in this country is so foul to the human palate that one scene in King Corn has our protagonists taking bites of the fruits of their labor and then spitting them out in disgust. That's because modern feed corn has been bred for two things, and delectability isn't one of them: to tolerate being planted very close to its neighbors (to increase yield) and to produce as much starch as possible (to increase yield).

* Most of that corn goes to one of two places -- the vast corn-syrup factories that produce the one sweetener that can be found in just about every junk food (and even non junk food) item in the grocery store, or to feed cattle. Feeding corn to cattle makes them fat and sick, by the way, but also delicious, since it raises the saturated fact content of their flesh.

* If you were to pluck one of your hairs and analyze the origins of its carbon, most of it came from corn. That's right -- you're mostly corn! That's because all the chicken and beef you've ever eaten (or almost all of it) was corn-fed. And those snacks and sodas? All corn syrup. Even the fries we eat are up to 50% corn by caloric content if they are fried in corn oil.

* Yield per acre for corn farming is 4-5 times what it was before the introduction of artificial fertilizer. This is part of the reason that Americans now spend only on average 16% of their take-home pay on food. Thanks corn! (But boo to your making us obese!)

Here's something I'll add that I stole from Michael Pollan, which doesn't really get addressed in King Corn: all that artificial fertilizer is basically the product of fossil fuels. So, more or less, if we're made out of corn, and our food system is dependent on corn, and corn is dependent on fossil fuels, then, in a manner of speaking, we're all petroleum by-products.

Last weekend I spent some time on an actual farm, and I asked the farmer, who was typical in that he had a giant farm that hardly resembled the family farms of yore, where his fertilizer came from. Russia, he said. Because in Russia, they use natural gas to produce fertilizer -- whereas in the U.S., we use it to produce energy, on account of it burning cleaner than coal.

Now you know where your Big Mac ultimately came from -- the Precambrian, by way of St. Petersburg.
12 Comments
That sounds like an interesting undertaking. I have been very skeptical of the cries of shortage related to possible increases of production of fuel from corn. There is a lot more corn grown in this country than what is necessary for food. High fructose corn syrup is everywhere where we don't need it and is strongly suspected to be a signifiant contributor to a number of health problems like obesity and diabetes.
Yeah, that sounds about right, the movie sounds pretty interesting. Heck, you could do a movie on the farmers themselves, as they each have their own agenda- usually environmental or financial, such as choosing to go no-till and using powerful usually toxic chems to help curb erosion, or the non-sustainable methods that use safer chemicals and whatnot at the price of the eroding soil; or worry about tuition for their kids, what family member is looking to be bought out next,or if their children even want the farm after college? Or even if that old bearing on the combine catches fire and shoots off into the crops and burns a section of field this year?
Sometimes I think it would be great if corn-based ethanol raised the price of corn high enough that we started replacing it in our food supply.

But then I realize that, eventually, we'll figure out cellulosic ethanol, and it will just lead to a price crash and more of the same.
@Jonathan -- I kind of agree, except the real problem is that corn is a fossil fuel-hungry crop. It takes so much energy, more than many other crops. Plus, the whole industry is hugely subsidized or else it wouldn't be profitable. The easiest way to make corn syrup more expensive is simply to stop subsidizing the production of its primary ingredient. I feel like this is an issue people on both sides of the political spectrum should be able to agree on... the right because it's deregulation, the left because obesity is also a social issue.
As I was driving around Illinois corn country, I stopped at a grain elevator which was so full that a huge mountain of corn was being stored in a kind of walled area outside. I asked a fellow there a few questions. He said yields this year were amazing, up to 230 bushels per acre. I asked him what the corn would be used for and he half-jokingly said, "Whatever ADM decides."
I've seen some concern expressed that using corn for ethanol (a kind of hare-brained idea at best) would deprive the world of too much food. Well, since you say most of the corn goes into making sugar, it is already out of the food chain (I do not consider high-fructose corn syrup to be a food). So, let the eat, well, whatever they're eating now, burning up the corn won't affect worthwhile nutrition in any way.
This is truly a big opportunity for Americans to think about what we are eating and why. Cheap does not always translate in to savings -- health care costs of late really seem to make the point on an unintended consequence of cheaper diets in America.

You can find an interesting blog Curt is doing over at Culinate. I am sure he would love everyone's thoughts

It is at: http://www.culinate.com/kingcorn

Enjoy!
No wonder I have self-esteem issues - I'm just a petroleum by-product. And we're all in the same boat. A scary thought.
Yummy, I love cows high in "saturated facts"! ;) (Actually, I'm a vegetarian. I just feel like picking on a typo.)
Beware of a review that acknowledges they haven't checked the facts. I have. Most of the corn in Iowa or the U.S. does not go into corn syrup. In 2006, only 4% went into corn syrup. Another 6% went to starches, sweeteners,cereal, and seed. 57% went to animal feed, but not just cattle feed. In fact, the two things made to seem like "most" in "King Corn" make up less than 25% of corn's usage. The other 75% goes into ethanol, foreign exports and feed for hogs and chickens.
As for the "corn" being foul, what vegetable isn't foul if eaten past it's prime, like the ears on King Corn were. The corn grown in the movie and most of the Corn Belt isn't "sweet corn" it's field corn, a commodity dried down in the field so it can be stored. Cows love it! It doesn't make them sick if fed in proper amounts. Poultry and chickens limit corn themselves, so that's why they didn't make the movie, that wouldn't have been entertaining enough!
There are many, many untruths and distortions in "King Corn". So if you watch it, at least check out the real facts afterwards.
Oh -here's an interesting fact, all the while the film makers criticize farmers for subsidies, they are taking a government subsidy through PBS.
Interesting!!
@M Gorrell - thanks for chiming in. I find your breakdown of the statistics helpful. I think the main point of the movie, though, which is that one of the reasons there is corn syrup in everything is that corn is cheap, still stands. Also, you're still mostly corn. So what if much of that corn goes to other sources?
All interesting points, and may I recommend to anyone who is interested in reading how the rise of the use of corn syrup over (more expensive) sugar has paralleled the "overweight epidemic" in the U.S. take a look at the book "Fast Food Nation."
"Guest" on 10-23-07 claimed that "Cows love corn", and I felt that I had to comment on that. Cattle are ruminants -- hayburners -- and are not suited to corn-based diets. Ezra Klein, in The Omnivore's Dilemma reports:
Bloat is perhaps the most serious thing that can go wrong with a ruminant on corn. The fermentation in the rumen produces copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime forms in the rumen that can trap the gas. The rumen inflates like a balloon until it presses against the animal's lungs. Unless action is taken quickly to relieve the pressure, the animal suffocates.

A concentrated diet of corn can also give a cow acidosis. Unlike our own highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of a rumen is neutral. Corn renders it acidic, causing a form a bovine heartburn...Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and salivate excessively, paw and scratch their bellies, and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, rumentitis, liver disease, and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to the full panoply of feedlot disease[...]

Cattle rarely live on feedlots for more than 150 days...Over time, the acids eat away at the rumen wallo, allowing bacteria to enter the animal's bloodstream. These microbes wind up in the liver, where they form abscesses and impair the liver's function. Between 15 and 30 percent of feedlot cows are found at slaughter to have abscessed livers...in some pens, the figure runs as high as 70 percent.

What keeps a feedlot animal healthy -- or healthy enough -- are antibiotics. Rumensen buffers acidity in the rumen, helping to prevent bloat and acidosis, and Tylosin, a form of erythromycin, lowers the incidence of liver infection. Most of the antibiotics sold in America today end up in animal feed...public health advocates don't object to treating the animals with antibiotics; they just don't want to see the drugs lose their effectiveness because factory farms are feeding them to healthy animals to promote growth. But the use of antibiotics in the feedlot confounds this distinction. Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn't be sick if not for the diet of grain we feed them.

 

ADVERTISEMENT