On the heels of last week's piece in Foreign Policy on the "Corn Dogs," David Rothkopf gives an update on the ethanol industry's push back on his assertions.

As interesting to me was that the Renewable Fuels Association, which is not like many things in Washington what its name suggests and does not support all renewable fuels just those produced by its members, saw fit to issue a press release going after me and Andrew Sullivan who graciously picked up some of what I had written on our corndog friends. They accused me of being an international consultant (true) who has worked closely with Brazil (also true). It helps to work with different parts of the world to actually know what's going on in them. In fact they characterized me as a Brazil nut. This hurt. Because I actually am not a big fan of Brazil nuts.

and

So let's toss the ball right back at them. Please find a credible expert who believes that corn is the best possible feedstock from which to make ethanol or that corn is actually a more efficient source of energy than other feedstocks like sugarcane or likely next generation feedstocks. Once you've done that we can move on to the idea that subsidizing an industry with an unsustainable model is in the U.S. national interest or that having U.S. consumer pay more for fuel in the current economic environment is a good idea or that protectionism is really the answer. Or better yet, perhaps we can move the discussion on to why the U.S. continues to lavish subsidies on the ag business that distort world trade and, very often, primarily offer a payday to corporate farms and well-to-do larger farmers.

Read it all here.