To the extent that ethanol is being derived from corn and allowing farmers to earn more money, that's a good thing. Take that nine billion gallons out of the market in the U.S. and replace it with gasoline, and suddenly there will be nine billion gallons worth of corn ethanol and corn product that these farmers don't have to sell.
Those are the facts on the issue of food versus fuel.
With respect to evolving to the next generation, it's important also to recognize that next-generation ethanol is going to build on the foundation that has been established by first-generation biofuels. We, meaning cellulose ethanol and second generation, don't have to convince car companies to warrant 10% ethanol. We don't have to convince oil companies to blend ethanol and sell it to consumers, and we don't have to convince consumers that they can pull up to the pump and confidently fill up with E10 blends of ethanol product. In other words, car companies, oil companies, and consumers all feel comfortable using the ethanol molecule. The molecule that we'll make in second generation is identical to the molecule we make in first generation.
However, to your question about the non-food portion, yes, we use agricultural residues rather than the food portion of the crop to derive our ethanol. The technology is complicated; it's not taking as short a time as we might like to get this product rolled out, but we're working together with government to help meet the government's objectives of commercialization of second-generation ethanol.