qui tire profit des cultures gm ?

The document analyzes the strategic efforts of the US government (via USAID), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and companies like Monsanto to introduce GM crops into African markets. It argues that these actors bypass national precautions by promoting 'harmonized' regional biosafety policies through bodies like COMESA and ECOWAS. The report highlights the failure of GM projects, such as the virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya, and the socio-economic risks of the 'Green Revolution' model, citing South Africa's experience where GM adoption has allegedly increased food insecurity and wealth inequality. It advocates for the adoption of the African Union's Model Law on Biosafety and a shift toward agro-ecology to ensure food sovereignty.

• The US government, primarily through USAID, utilizes the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP) and the Biosafety Systems Program (PBS) to influence African biosafety policies, aiming to create regulatory environments with minimal controls that are attractive to agro-industrial investors.
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has invested millions of dollars in GM crop development and influential organizations such as the African Biosafety Expertise Network (ABNE) to promote biotechnology in African decision-making spheres.
• The US strategy has shifted toward 'harmonization' of biosafety policies through Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to bypass national standards and the precautionary principle established by the Cartagena Protocol.
• The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) has adopted biosafety guidelines that the report claims contradict the Cartagena Protocol by facilitating the proliferation of GMOs and undermining case-by-case risk assessments.
• The Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project is described as a 'Trojan horse' used by Monsanto to influence biosafety legislation and introduce commercial GM traits, such as the MON 810 insect-resistant maize, under the guise of philanthropy.
• In South Africa, the widespread adoption of GM maize, soy, and cotton has not solved food insecurity; instead, it has concentrated the value chain in a few powerful companies and widened the gap between rich and poor.
• Early GM projects, such as the virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya, failed to deliver promised yield increases and were vulnerable to viruses in the field, yet they served as vehicles to train officials in North American biosafety approaches.
• The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN) are criticized for promoting a 'Green Revolution' model that prioritizes private investment and commercialization over the needs of small-scale farmers and women.

APA

Swanby, H. (2015). qui tire profit des cultures gm ? Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Qui-tire-profit-2015.pdf

Chicago

Swanby, Haidee. qui tire profit des cultures gm ? Friends of the Earth International, 2015. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Qui-tire-profit-2015.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Swanby |first1=Haidee |title=qui tire profit des cultures gm ? |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=February 2015 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Qui-tire-profit-2015.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{swanby2015qui, author = {Swanby, Haidee}, title = {{qui tire profit des cultures gm ?}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2015}, month = feb, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Qui-tire-profit-2015.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }