The primary dissenting issue in opposing biofuels is its negative impact on food prices, which creates the unintended consequences of choosing between food and fuel plus increase cost of animal feed. In deciding food or fuel, the path that will yield the most profit will be the choice, regardless on its impact on consumers and animal producers. Current bioenergy production is rewarded by subsidies and incentives, not necessarily on the output potential of the feedstock or its negative impact. Therefore, participants including growers, seed brokers and biofuel producers will choose fuel as long as government subsidies continue to provide favorable profit. The unfortunate burden of higher prices of food, feed and fuel can be addressed by adopting non-food crops dedicated to biofuels, or by creating a closed-loop system whereby any food crop used as a feedstock for fuel must meet the 3F criteria: Food-Feed-Fuel. Non-food crops as feedstock for bioenergy could worsen the problem, because farmers would use their food-crop acreages to produce the more profitable bioenergy crops. In the 3F model, farmers can continue to grow the usual food crops; however, the first use of the harvest should be for food, either by direct human consumption and the waste-stream in the form of fiber, residue and stover should be used for feed and fuel. Through the food industry, harvested products will be used to process food for human consumption, while co-products from the process will be made available for feed and fuel. Meeting the need for animal feed is necessary to reduce the inadvertent side-effect of increasing the costs of meat, eggs, dairy and other animal products. The last of the 3Fs (fuel), should come from the waste stream of the first two-Fs. This presentation will focus on oil seed crops and waste vegetable oil.