Cargill nets deal in Taiwan (55 million in EXPORTS of environmentally friendly for the USA)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Joe Duggan

LINCOLN – A Taiwanese company has agreed to buy $55 million worth of corn-based plastics made in Blair.

Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy, on an Asian trade mission, announced Friday that Wei Mon Industry Co. has signed a letter of intent to make the purchases by the end of 2013. The bio-plastic is manufactured at the Cargill plant in Blair.

The Taiwanese government has set goals for the reduction of conventional plastics, creating new markets for the corn-based material, Sheehy said in a news release.

“This is a growing segment of the marketplace that is especially valuable because not only are we exporting corn but also the additional value that comes from turning that corn into plastic before it leaves Nebraska,” he said.

Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20110812/NEWS01/708129863#cargill-nets-deal-in-taiwan

---

FULL story at link.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Gave it a rec. Might be the only one, since it's Evil Cargill, but good for Nebraska.

[pam4water]

2. Yeah, it's Cargill, I'm sure it will turn out to be toxic in some way.

[jtuck004]

3. I forget where I saw such plastic containers used, but made of corn instead of

petroleum products.

Slightly more flexible, but tough enough.

Drop it in the ground or water it degrades, as opposed to floating in the ocean. Then again, there are people without food who could eat the corn. Maybe they are better off eating other grains.

I wonder if there is only one patent on the process - it seemed like I heard about it elsewhere.

[Honeycombe8]

4. There's no shortage of corn, for anyone who wants to buy it. I expect that's why...

they are using corn to make bottles. Not just "green," but a way to sell more of their corn.

Corn has been used for many years to make many kinds of plastics and other products.

[jtuck004]

5. It's not so much the shortage but the energy expended to grow it.

Fairly easy, and given good weather can get a good crop, though you need to have machines and acreage because of the price (unless you can sell ears for 75 cents or a dollar each - I never thought I would see that, but I have).

But have you ever grown it? It's a fertilizer hog. Unless the Native Americans really did teach the European invaders how to grow it, I suspect that was some scraggly lookingstuff they tried to survive on.

In todays terms that means a lot of irrigation and a lot of processed oil. As that stuff goes up in price so does the food. They lose water or transportation, it's game over.

[Honeycombe8]

6. That's like saying we shouldn't make cars because of the energy is takes to make them.

The item is going to be made. Period. It's then only a question of HOW to make them.

Corn apparently is as profitable as using petroleum, and it certainly is "greener." As long as there's no shortage of corn used for food, which there is not.

Corn is a fertilizer hog, you say. So...your point is that corn shouldn't be grown at all? If it should, then it doesn't really matter what it's grown for, once you accept that some foods use more fertilizer than others. Which is a fact of life.

I'm certain there are other foods that use more fertilizer than corn. So...we stop growing any food that uses more fertilizer than, say...rice? Or do we use wheat as a guide? Or do we use soybeans? Where is the line past which we simply will not grow it?

If someone can grow something, make it into something else that is less harmful than the prior product, and then sell it at a profit...that is called success for everyone.

[jtuck004]

7. Good point. Perhaps we shouldn't.

It's incredibly disingenuous to ignore the environmental costs and government subsidies which make "lots" of corn possible, especially at a time when we are pulling food out of kids mouths and perhaps housing or heating assistance from seniors, but then again when a post is making up it's own points and creating facts out of thin air...why, one could make a whole political party out of that. What a waste of time.

Never said we shouldn't grow corn - the post above said it was plentiful, and my point was (maybe I need to type slower?) that this is only because of the other inputs, like massive amounts of petroleum, both in fertilizer and transportation, which have costs, both environmental and health, that are ignored in the pursuit of profit.

The last line in the post above is just a continuation of the big lie - it's not "less" harmful or a "success for everyone" when one figures in the potential melting of the global ice caps and warming of the earth, death of ocean life, the spreading of carbon soot across the land, subsidies given to farmers while taking Head Start or Senior Heating Assistance money away, etc. I'm not saying we don't make choices, but I don't see the virtue in being either ignorant or a buffoon by ignoring the very real human suffering that such choices impose. We need to have those things on the table and acknowledge that we are killing people, especially those with little political or economic power, in the pursuit of profit. It would be cowardly to do otherwise.

In any event, I'm not interested in continuing such a low-level discussion.

[Honeycombe8]

8. I guess I have trouble following this line of thinking. I've heard it before.

If corn uses that much in resources to produce it, then it wouldn't be profitable to grow it, make it into other products, and sell it. So...I can only conclude that it uses less resources to make than resources it SAVES in the end product. Or it wouldn't be profitable.

I just don't follow this "it takes so much in resources to grow" or "to make" something. If companies and people do it, and they are able to charge reasonable prices, and other people want the product, then ipso facto, it simply CAN'T be taking that many resources to make it. Because the maker HAS to pay for the resources it took to grow the corn in the first place.

A great example of this is....meat. There is no other food in the world that is so inefficient as meat. Meat of any kind. It takes a world of resources to house, treat, breed, feed, slaughter, and distribute meat...and the end result is only a fraction of the FOOD it took to make that meat. In other words, if we didn't use the resources to produce meat, those same resources WOULD FEED MANY MORE PEOPLE, AND THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE HEALTHIER. But that's not a monetary gauge. Monetarily, meat is profitable. It's just that efficiency-wise, it's impractical.

But people insist on "growing" animals to make car seats, food, furniture, and other products. Very inefficient, and additionally, very cruel.

So...corn...eh. I don't follow the logic on that one. It pales in comparison to other products.