Food vs. Fuel = 75% increase

the Guardian claims that a World Bank report allocates up to 75% of the food price increase is caused by the biofuels incentives.

I've mentioned the problem of food vs. fuel for a while, but never thought it could be this significant.

the 3% number bandied around is always coached to be on corn.
not talking about what changes affect the soy, or other crops that are shifted by the need for land/fertilizer/resources for corn.

If the 75% number is close to accurate (+/- 10%) that's a huge number.

So if this is part of the unintended consequences for corn ethanol subsidies.  What's the best solution?

a pure free market economist would say, get rid of ALL subsidies.
nothing for biofuels.
nothing for gas
nothing for oil

no tax credits, no corporate welfare, no subsidies.

But right now, that would be impossible.  at $4/gal people are screaming.  Take away all subsidies, then we could be looking at $10/gal (ok that's a guess, I have no idea right now)

but I'm 100% sure that it would be more than current prices.

But no one would claim that any fuel had an advantage over any other.

Since this is not the case, we're going to have to do the ham-fisted method of using subsidies/incentives and deal with all the unintended consequences with more adjustments and fixes.