"No Blood for Oil" is a spurious rallying cry on the left, but apparently it is acceptable for the poor in the third world to starve so that American Eco-activists can feel self-righteous about driving "flex-fuel" vehicles. According to the WORLD BANK:
"almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for biofuels production in the U.S.
As reported in a commentary entitled "Food Crisis Shows How Bad Policies Can Be Deadly" by Kevin Hassett.
Couldn't this be considered imperialistic "food hegemony" caused by the activists who place slight disturbance of the caribou by oil drilling in Alaska over the nutrition of their fellow man. (By the way, I've always wondered why environmentalists care so much about disturbing caribou in Alaska but never express any concern for camels in Saudi Arabia.)
True regard for fellow humans who are now hungry and malnourished because the eco-activists have upset global food markets could be expressed in the slogan "No Starvation for Fuel!"