Since James Lenz’s Sept. 29 commentary, “Yes, it’s time to rethink ethanol,” called out the organization I lead by name, I feel compelled to respond. And while we disagree with almost every one of Lenz’s arguments, he got one thing essentially right: The Renewable Fuels Association will always defend ethanol against baseless attacks and misinformation.

As a former adjunct professor and someone involved in “industrial research and development,” Lenz certainly failed to do his homework for this assignment. He says “hundreds” of academic studies have assessed the downside of ethanol, yet he can only point to the same debunked study cited in Karen Tolkkinen’s Sept. 1 column, “The time is ripe to rethink ethanol.” That study, which incidentally was funded by the Washington, D.C.-based National Wildlife Federation, was roundly criticized by numerous academic institutions, including Harvard, Purdue University, the University of Illinois, Tufts University and Department of Energy laboratories.

Lenz goes on to argue that ethanol has displaced Minnesota cropland that previously produced “edible foods such as pulse crops,” then contradicts himself by correctly noting that ethanol has “little to do with food security.” In reality, the number of Minnesota farms growing pulses increased between 2007 (the year Congress adopted the existing Renewable Fuel Standard) and 2022 (the latest year for which USDA data is available). Land dedicated to dry edible beans in Minnesota, by far the largest pulse crop, jumped 45% between 2007 and 2022, while production doubled. The amount of land and number of farms growing berries also increased over this period. Here’s a spreadsheet documenting the changes in the state.

Meanwhile, land dedicated to growing field corn (the type used for ethanol) in Minnesota fell slightly from 2007 to 2022 and the number of farms growing corn dropped by 20%. Nevertheless, Minnesota’s corn production grew 30% over this period due to new technology and greater efficiency — something Lenz apparently seems to think is a bad thing. The data also disprove Lenz’s argument that more corn production means more chemicals and fertilizers. Today’s farmers use less fertilizer and chemicals than they did in the early 1980s, yet produce almost twice as much grain per acre.

Lenz correctly noted that farmers get defensive when ethanol is attacked or, to use his term, “questioned.” But it’s not because they are “caught up in Big Ag’s vicious production monopoly,” as he asserts. It’s because they are sick and tired of the outright lies being told by uninformed elitists about growth in renewable fuels and its positive impact on agriculture.

It’s time for the people to have a conversation about ethanol, Lenz says. On that point, we agree. Ethanol producers and our partners in agriculture always welcome discussions that are grounded facts, data and science. Let’s talk.

Geoff Cooper is president and CEO of the Missouri-based Renewable Fuels Association.