(FORTUNE Magazine) - Grassing Up . . .

To the Editor:

One item was missing from "How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline--Forever" (Feb. 6): the energy cost of growing, processing, and transporting ethanol. Without the federal subsidy, would this biofuel be cost-effective? Would Archer Daniels Midland be in this business? Considering all the energy-intensive steps from planting to gas station, will this biofuel be a net producer or consumer of energy? EDMUND O'SHEA Arlington Heights, Ill.

The story does address this objection to ethanol (which was a large focus on an episode of West Wing last year, as well as in the State of the Union address), but so many letter writers raised it that we welcome further discussion in an online forum at fortune.com/ethanol. For other views, see below.

. . . and Topping Off

Kudos for a comprehensive look at the U.S. ethanol industry. You suggest removing the secondary tariff on imported ethanol to increase ethanol use. The secondary tariff exists so that American taxpayers don't wind up subsidizing ethanol production that is already government-supported in countries like Brazil. Oil refiners get a 51-cent tax credit per gallon of ethanol used, regardless of the source. Imported ethanol pays the tariff, benefits from the tax incentive, and competes quite effectively with U.S. ethanol. There's no need to subsidize it further. BOB DINNEEN President and CEO Renewable Fuels Association Washington, D.C.

I drove an ethanol-fueled car to work in São Paulo in the early '90s. I never understood why Brazil's ethanol program wasn't featured in every U.S. press debate about alternative fuels. Brazil is a case study in a proven way to reduce oil addiction. The first step would be to lower or eliminate the tariffs on Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol, which would make a huge difference at the pump. CARLOS RICARDO Ridgefield, Conn.

I'm a car nut, and turning over my Mustang GT for a hydrogen fuel-cell car would make me want to take my life. I hope automakers are creating ways to retrofit flex-fuel technology, both for collectors and those who can't afford new vehicles--and who are probably suffering most from high gas prices. Retrofitting might even make money. SCOTT GEHMAN Carlisle, Pa.

The article notes the enormous tax credit whose cost is borne by the U.S. taxpayer. So a wealth transfer is once again needed to provide the answer to a dilemma. No one tells us when the tax credit will end. I hope your writers are correct in their predictions, but ethanol as "the answer to the energy dilemma" has been touted since the 1950s--and the tax credit remains. HAROLD BERNARD REISMAN Carlsbad, Calif.

How much cut grass--front and back yards, landscaping, parks, playing fields--is gathered weekly and hauled off to dumps? Perhaps we should be looking into a way to divert the tons of biomass we already grow and harvest to a different destination. MICHAEL LONG Via e-mail

Dissing the Experts

Perhaps "More Famous = Less Accurate" (Value Driven, Feb. 6) because a prognosticator has a better chance of getting publicity by predicting improbable outcomes. Dow 36,000 is a catchy book title. There's no story in a forecast of the Dow rising 5% a year. STEPHEN RACINE Indian Harbour Beach, Fla.

Star Power

Your headline "Star Power" (Feb. 6) on the story about those with CEO potential perpetuates what is wrong with business today. I don't want to minimize the accomplishments of the fine men and women in your article, but anyone who works for an organization knows that a company's success is not about one "great" person. Success is about many people accomplishing great things. STEVE KNIGHT Colton, N.Y.

Sallie Mae Responds

We were disappointed by your story ("When Sallie Met Wall Street," Dec. 26) on our company. Your headline loudly trumpets a purported high interest rate of one unnamed borrower, when in fact this was not the borrower's interest rate. While we were not presented with the details on this borrower, you are likely citing a disclosure we make to borrowers while they are in school that shows an annual percentage rate (APR), that combines their interest rate along with the full impact of a one-time origination fee. By comparison, the APR that we disclose to the borrower after they leave school and begin repaying the loan is significantly lower. Regardless, we do not charge the high interest rate you cite--as your article ultimately notes. Indeed, a diligent reader would find--not in the headline, but in the 27th paragraph--that the average interest rates on our private loans are about 8%--a remarkably low rate for unsecured personal debt. In addition, the origination fees we charge are standard in the private education credit industry and are based on a borrower's credit history and that of any co-borrower. You will find similar fees at other major lenders.

Your article highlights a small handful of borrowers without mentioning the millions of American families we have helped realize the dream of college--and who have successfully repaid their student loans.

It quotes the usual critics of the guaranteed student loan program without any balance from students, schools, or others who understand that in an era of limited grant aid, rising college costs, and outdated federal loan limits, the private sector plays a critical role in keeping the doors to higher education open for all students.

It cites the case of an aerospace engineer with $38,000 in student loan debt. The article devotes three full paragraphs to his case, yet never mentions that all actions taken on his account regarding late fees, grace periods, deferments, and forbearances were in accordance with the rules set by Congress--not Sallie Mae--under Title IV of the Higher Education Act.

It reports on employee contributions to one member of Congress, yet omits the fact that our employees' Political Action Committee makes contributions to Republicans and Democrats who support the private sector's role in the student lending program.

It discusses a hearing in Pennsylvania last month about private education loans, yet fails to mention that one of our largest competitors and officials from two universities testified at the same hearing that the rates we charge students at two-year for-profit institutions are in line with other lenders.

In short, your article was a baseless attack on a company that has helped millions of Americans who, without our financing tools, may not have had an alternative to attend college and improve their lives. For 33 years, Sallie Mae has provided access and affordability to all Americans, regardless of their credit background, making a college education possible for millions. We are proud of that record. TIM FITZPATRICK CEO, Sallie Mae

Editor's note: The 28% interest rate cited in our headline comes directly from a "truth in lending" disclosure filed by Sallie Mae. The ultimate cost of a loan is the interest rate and the fees that are assessed. One cannot ignore the impact of fees--especially when they are assessed both at the loan disbursement and sometimes again when repayment begins, per Sallie Mae's prospectus for the securitizations of its private credit loans. In the case of the aerospace engineer with $38,000 in student debt, the story does not say or imply that the actions taken on his account were against the law. Finally, we understand that Sallie Mae and other companies donate to politicians. We cited John Boehner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, because he oversees a large portion of Sallie Mae's business.

Fair Enough?

You point out that if a student is paying less than a specified rate on a consolidated loan, the government pays the lender the difference. But if the student is paying more, the lender keeps the extra profit. I find this extremely unfair. And though I have never defaulted on my own student loans, I find Sallie Mae's collection tactics alarming. Congress should limit the fees lenders like Sallie Mae can charge for collecting defaulted student loans and work with lenders and students to develop a program that is less one-sided in favor of lenders. CHARLES J. TAYLOR Los Angeles

Corrections

In "Deadly Caution" (Feb. 20), we said Merck had not yet sought a U.S. license for its rotavirus vaccine; it has, and received FDA approval after we went to press. We also implied that Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew Pargluva from the market; rather, its approval was delayed indefinitely.

Due to improper identification by Getty Images, in "Going a Long Way to Collect a Debt" (Feb. 20), the photograph captioned as President Denis Sassou-Nguesso of the Republic of the Congo was in fact a picture of Niger President Mamadou Tandja.

FORTUNE regrets the errors.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Please include the writer's name, address, and daytime

phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity or space. Mail: FORTUNE

Letters, Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, NY 10020 Fax:

212-522-7686

E-mail: fortunemail_letters@fortunemail.com Letters

sent to this e-mail address may appear in these pages or on fortune.com.