I think not. At least, not to those who have been paying attention (which group, admittedly, does not always include me).

Here’s what The Guardian says:

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government’s claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.

(As an aside… I was at first thinking that the impulse to protect Bush and his disastrous administration at the expense of the world’s poor was due to Paul Wolfowitz being the president of the World Bank. I’d forgotten that he was such a complete disaster that he was basically forced out in 2007. No, the current president is the, I’m sure, completely autonomous and independent former Bush admin official, Robert Zoellick. Ahem.)

More from The Guardian:

"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."

Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation".

President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."

I got this via Chris at AmericaBlog, where commenter greatdogs also points out…

How much of this report is the IMF and World Bank going into the CYA mode? Many small countries at one time produced a lot of their own food, But if they wanted a loan from the IMF or WB, they had to eliminate tariffs on imports. Then subsidized crops were imported, many by the US, to these countries and sold at less than the cost of production. Small farmers in these places then went out of business and the local supplies dried up. Then the prices go up and the local populace cannot afford to feed themselves. Two good examples are Haiti that used to produce enough rice to sustain itself and Mexico where many small farmers fell victim to US grown corn, which has also contributed to the number of Mexican immigrants who have come north looking for work. The current biofuel policy is best described as the ethanol boondoggle. But unfortunately, we are lacking the national leadership necessary to solve our energy problems.

This is at least one massive problem that seems to have a relatively simple fix… perhaps after a few more years (or decades) of study and a few more thousands dying of hunger and food riots worldwide, someone will actually do something about it.

(photo of corn at the top found here… where there is also an interesting article.)