Smithfield, the world's largest producer and processor of pork, reported record profits this quarter as the global economy continues to recover and exports rise. These higher meat exports and higher pork prices helped Tyson foods post a larger quarterly profit than expected.

Despite these record earnings, just yesterday the American Meat Institute supported legislation introduced from Senators Coburn (R-OK) and Cardin (D-MD) to end ethanol subsidies claiming that as a result of U.S. ethanol policy, “the cost of feeding livestock has increased, which in turn drives up the cost of food production for everyone in the supply chain, trickling down to the consumer.”

If the cost of production has been so affected by ethanol, then why are these companies raking in record profits?

In the words of baseball legend Yogi Berra, “This is déjà vu all over again.”

It was only three short years ago, at the height of the last oil price spike, that the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) — representing the world’s largest grocery makers — launched a smear campaign against the U.S. ethanol industry in an attempt to blame rising food prices on American ethanol producers.

Since then, countless academic, economic and government studies, including the most recent World Bank study, have disproven the so-called “food vs. fuel” myth, concluding what we have been saying all along: Wall Street speculators, high oil prices and the high costs of manufacturing, packaging and transporting all have far more impact than ethanol on the grocery prices that everyday Americans pay.

Because of Growth Energy’s efforts to combat these false claims, the food vs. fuel argument has been weakened. But there are some who still don’t understand that the corn for ethanol is not the same sweet corn that ends up on the dining room table. And with grain prices on the rise again today, Big Food and Big Meat no doubt want to continue the Big Lie that ethanol production increases grocery store prices overall (all while raking in record profits right under consumers’ noses).

Even the Chief Financial Officer of General Mills, in a story for the Sept. 9, 2009 edition of the St. Paul Pioneer Press covering his company’s record profits, said that the public doesn’t understand how small a portion grain costs represent in their overall expenses – as little as 5 percent.

Growth Energy led the fight in 2008 to expose the food vs. fuel scheme as myth, but unfortunately, AMI has still been effective in fooling consumers and politicians.

Take for example Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s recent bill to eliminate current government support for grain ethanol – the only commercially viable alternative to gasoline refined from oil today.

Sen. Feinstein said “Ethanol is the only industry that benefits from a triple crown of government intervention: its use is mandated by law, it is protected by tariffs, and companies are paid by the federal government to use it. It’s time we end this practice once and for all.

Not surprisingly, AMI used almost identical language to define ethanol support on NPR a few months ago.

In an interview with NPR in December, the American Meat Institute's J. Patrick Boyle said the current system is unfair, because “the ethanol industry is benefiting from a trifecta of government subsidies… ‘the government mandates the consumption of your product, subsidizes its production, and then insulates the product from international competition.’”

Ethanol – at just 10 percent of the market – reduces our dependence on foreign oil, creates jobs and strengthens our national security. And we can do more with greater access to the market.

Last year, Growth Energy proposed reforming the ethanol tax program and adopting policies to benefit consumers at the pump. This was all part of our Fueling Freedom plan.

With infrastructure in place, ethanol could compete and beat oil, without government support. The proposals from Sens. Coburn, Cardin and Feinstein would do nothing to reduce our deadly addiction to oil, nor reform the marketplace.

Unfortunately, these politicians would rather listen to corporate-backed meat packers who are only interested in policies that deliver cheap grains so that they can continue to make a profit at the American consumers’ expense.