Qui profite des plantes GM? Monsanto et les multinationales des biotechnologies qui mènent la “révolution” agricole des OGM

The report asserts that ten years after the first major GM crop plantings in 1996, these technologies have not reduced hunger or poverty and have instead increased pesticide use and corporate control over seeds. It highlights the dominance of Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer, noting that over 95% of commercial GM plants are limited to maize, soy, and cotton. The text details failures in various regions, including poor yields of GM sweet potatoes in Kenya and farmer debt in India, while accusing Monsanto of using corruption in Indonesia and aggressive legal tactics against farmers in the US.

• Genetically modified plants have not fulfilled their promised goals of combating hunger and poverty; most are intended for animal feed rather than human consumption, and in developing countries, they are primarily grown as export cash crops at the expense of local food crops.
• The adoption of GM crops has led to increased pesticide use and environmental degradation. In the US, GM maize, soy, and cotton caused a 55,000-tonne increase in pesticides since 1996, while intensive soy farming in South America contributes to deforestation and soil erosion.
• The GM seed market is highly concentrated, with Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer responsible for nearly all commercial GM plants. Monsanto alone controls nearly 90% of the genetic traits used globally and is the world's largest seed company.
• Commercial GM technology is extremely limited in scope, with maize, soy, and cotton representing over 95% of commercialized GM plants, focusing on only two genetic traits: herbicide tolerance and herbicide production (Bt).
• Monsanto has allegedly used corruption and undue influence to bypass regulations. In Indonesia, a US Securities and Exchange Commission investigation found that Monsanto paid over $700,000 in bribes to at least 140 government officials and their families between 1997 and 2002.
• GM crop trials in Africa have shown poor results. In Kenya, GM sweet potato trials costing over $10 million showed that non-GM varieties had significantly higher yields, and in South Africa, many small farmers using Bt cotton suffered losses and could not pay their credits.
• In Europe, there has been no new GM plant authorized for cultivation since 1998, and public opposition remains high, with 70% of European citizens refusing to eat GM foods.

APA

Friends of the Earth International (2006). Qui profite des plantes GM? Monsanto et les multinationales des biotechnologies qui mènent la “révolution” agricole des OGM. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Qui-profite-des-plantes-GM-resume-des-points-essentiels.pdf

Chicago

Friends of the Earth International. Qui profite des plantes GM? Monsanto et les multinationales des biotechnologies qui mènent la “révolution” agricole des OGM. 2006. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Qui-profite-des-plantes-GM-resume-des-points-essentiels.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Friends of the Earth International |title=Qui profite des plantes GM? Monsanto et les multinationales des biotechnologies qui mènent la “révolution” agricole des OGM |date=January 2006 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Qui-profite-des-plantes-GM-resume-des-points-essentiels.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{friendsoftheearthinternational2006qui, author = {{Friends of the Earth International}}, title = {{Qui profite des plantes GM? Monsanto et les multinationales des biotechnologies qui mènent la “révolution” agricole des OGM}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2006}, month = jan, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Qui-profite-des-plantes-GM-resume-des-points-essentiels.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }