Corn

This question is very difficult from a sociological standpoint. I'm no expert on food security consulting, but it seems to me the best option isn't listed. I would suggest that the people should grow fruits and vegetables as well as finding some type of grassland to graze the cattle on. Corn is not a natural forage for cattle, anyway. They would then have fresh produce as well as high-protein milk, and even possibly a calf once a year to sell to a neighboring family. If cattle weren't an option (i. e. poor quality grazing land), then goats might be, since they can graze on nearly any kind of plant material with the same benefits (milk and new offspring every year). Just my thoughts.

Corn shouldn't be considered as the main ingredient or main ration to "feed cattle so [people] can eat beef." This statement in itself is illogical and misguided as it comes from the stand point that all beef from all cattle are corn-fed, which is not true at all. People can easily fatten cattle on grass as they can on corn, not to mention it cuts out the "middle-man" in growing, harvesting and feeding corn when cattle can harvest their own from the grass grown in pastures. Saves these people a lot of extra work and is beneficial for the land and soil beneath; if these people choose, they can turn a part of the pasture that they've had cattle grazing on into garden plots to grow their vegetables in.

The other thing that you should think about is that if the soil is inadequate for growing crops and vegetables then grazing cattle would be the best option for people to raise. If the soil is of good quality, then it is ideal for these starving people to raise crops/vegetables/fruits to grow on. However, there's no reason why these same people can't allocate land for pasture and land for crops and have the best of both worlds. Humans are not either carnivorous or herbivorous/vegetarian, they are omnivores and are capable of eating both meat and plants. Thus there should be no "either or" in this question, regardless if it's a tough or easy question to answer.

MFS can be any food starch, such as potato, corn, wheat or any other starch. It is modified by treating with acid to produce different cooking properties. One common example is instant pudding. The starch has been modified to thicken without the addition of heat.

There is no requirement that the source of the starch be specified on the label, but the manufacturer may be able to identify it if required. Since the manufacturer purchases MFS from milling companies like Con-Agra and ADM in large sacks, they may not know what the MFS actually contains.

cuz it is

~ ~ ~

It might not help much, but please see the related link below.

corn (1)"grain," O.E. corn, from P.Gmc. *kurnam "small seed" (cf. O.Fris., O.S. korn "grain," M.Du. coren, Ger. Korn, O.N. korn, Goth. kaurn), from PIE base *gre-no- "grain" (cf. O.C.S. zruno "grain," L. granum "seed," Lith. žirnis"pea"). The sense of the O.E. word was "grain with the seed still in" (e.g. barleycorn) rather than a particular plant. Locally understood to denote the leading crop of a district. Restricted to corn on the cob in America (c.1600, originally Indian corn, but the adjective was dropped), usually wheat in England, oats in Scotland and Ireland, while korn means "rye" in parts of Germany. Maize was introduced to China by 1550, it thrived where rice did not grow well and was a significant factor in the 18th century population boom there. Cornflakesfirst recorded 1907. Corned beef so called for the "corns" or grains of salt with which it is preserved; from verb corn"to salt" (1560s).