Poverty Is the Objective Ally of Multinational Corporations, Which Have Little Incentive to Do Better

His voice is calm, but his message is uncompromising. A former Minister for Forward Planning and Public Policy Evaluation in Togo and now an economist at the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), Kako Nubukpo argues for a fairer distribution of wealth. As food, health, and environmental crises become increasingly intertwined, he insists that food sovereignty can no longer be reduced to the simple question of how much food is produced. Caught between dependence on imports, the protection of domestic agricultural sectors, public health, and social justice, food has become an issue that is at once agricultural, political, and geopolitical. A timely conversation.

---

When we talk about “food security,” what do we actually mean? Producing enough food, ensuring healthy diets, or regaining control over value chains?

Kako Nubukpo: The concept has evolved considerably over time. Initially, the focus was primarily on agricultural and food self-sufficiency—producing what a country consumes. Then, in the early 1980s, with the advent of structural adjustment programmes and the World Bank’s Berg Report, the concept of food security emerged within a more neoliberal framework. Under this approach, it was no longer necessary to produce what one consumed, provided that adequate mechanisms existed to import any food that was lacking.
This perspective dominated international development thinking until the 2008 global food crisis exposed its limitations. In response, the World Bank revised its position, acknowledging that countries should still produce a significant share of the food they consume.
At the same time, La Via Campesina, the international peasant movement that had long championed the concept of food sovereignty, helped establish the idea that no country should depend entirely on international markets to feed its population.
Today, we are moving toward a more coherent framework built on three complementary pillars: self-sufficiency, food security, and food sovereignty.

Have all countries regained their food sovereignty?

K. N.: No. Very few countries can genuinely claim to be food sovereign. The real objective is to maintain a sufficiently strong productive base so as not to depend exclusively on external suppliers.
Japan, for example, imports a significant proportion of its food, yet it retains the theoretical capacity to meet its own needs should global trade come to a halt.
In Africa, roughly two-thirds of food consumption comes from domestic production, while just over one-third is supplied through imports. This reflects both the continent’s demographic dynamics and the contrast between highly outward-looking urban centres and rural areas that remain comparatively self-sufficient.

Would you say that food security is primarily an agricultural issue, or one of economic and political power?

K. N.: The three dimensions are inseparable.
For Africa, the agricultural challenge is obvious: making better use of its 500 million hectares of arable land in order to increase production.
There is also a major economic challenge: creating employment opportunities for a rapidly growing young population.
Finally, there is a geopolitical dimension. If Africa succeeds in feeding a larger share of its population, it will also strengthen its position and influence on the international stage.
By contrast, Europe now faces a different issue: managing agricultural surpluses. European overproduction frequently finds its way onto African markets, fuelling tensions surrounding Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and exports of products such as milk and poultry.

Can you give a historical example of food sovereignty imposed by circumstances

K. N.: Certainly. A striking example is Southern Rhodesia, which later became Zimbabwe.
Under international sanctions, the country developed a high degree of food self-sufficiency, enabling it to withstand external pressure for many years.
Following independence in 1980, Zimbabwe was even regarded as Africa’s breadbasket for maize.
The country’s subsequent trajectory clearly illustrates that agriculture can never be separated from questions of governance and political power.

Is agribusiness compatible with the goal of feeding populations sustainably?

K. N.: Yes—but only if we distinguish between several different issues.
The first priority is to protect domestic agricultural sectors. If an American rice producer and a Senegalese rice producer compete in the same market, the former will inevitably overwhelm the latter—American producers can generate roughly 400 times more output per hour—thanks to economies of scale and extremely low marginal costs.
Without some degree of protection, local producers disappear, either by abandoning farming altogether or by migrating elsewhere.
Free trade does not function efficiently when factors of production are not genuinely mobile—and labour, in particular, is far from perfectly mobile.
This is why Africa must move up the value chain, process its own raw materials, and embrace a degree of infant-industry protection during its development phase.

And what about the environment?

K. N.: That is the second major dimension of the issue. Africa faces a fundamental dilemma: should it follow the traditional path of industrial catch-up, treating environmental protection as a luxury reserved for wealthy countries, or should it pioneer a more sustainable model of development?
In my view, the most promising path would be to negotiate the creation of an ecological and social fund that would enable the development of agro-industrial value chains using state-of-the-art technologies while preserving natural ecosystems.
The concept of “rational solidarity,” developed by the political scientist Bertrand Badie, is particularly relevant here. Supporting Africa is not simply a moral imperative—it is also a prerequisite for our shared survival.

How can we reconcile mass production, affordable prices, and healthy food?

K. N.: Ultimately, everything comes down to the level of poverty.
African economies face a well-known dilemma often described as the “urban bias.” Urban populations generally have greater electoral weight and a much stronger capacity for political mobilization. Since independence in the 1960s, many African governments have therefore prioritized the large-scale importation of food by sea in order to feed urban populations and prevent social unrest. Rural areas, by contrast, have too often been neglected.
The difficulty is that higher-quality food inevitably comes at a higher cost, while wealthy countries are able to export agricultural products at very low prices—sometimes simply because selling their surpluses is cheaper than storing them.
The challenge, therefore, is to reconcile short-term and long-term objectives: preventing immediate hunger while simultaneously building resilient and sustainable local agricultural sectors.

Does the rise of food insecurity in France show that food has become as much a question of social justice as of agriculture?

K. N.: Absolutely.
For many years, we believed that broad-based prosperity would naturally flow from the Fordist model and the welfare state. The Trente Glorieuses reinforced the belief that this would be sufficient. But the “forgotten people of globalization,” particularly younger generations, have once again moved to the forefront.
In France, where the rural population now represents barely 4% of the total population, there is an urgent need to reinvent the links between production and consumption by creating new supply chains that combine affordable prices with high-quality food.
Ultimately, this is also a question of territorial planning. Students are increasingly concentrated around major metropolitan areas, while many rural regions are becoming demographic deserts.
The problem has already been illustrated in the United States, particularly among disadvantaged Black communities, where low-income households are often exposed to poor-quality food dominated by ultra-processed products. In a country like the United States, Coca-Cola can cost less than bottled water.
Strengthening the welfare state and encouraging large corporations to operate within genuinely reasonable profit margins are therefore essential.

How can farmers receive fair compensation while making food more affordable for low-income households?

K. N.: That is the classic square-circle problem.
Ultimately, it is a matter of societal choice.
If agriculture is considered a strategic priority, then a share of society’s collective wealth must be directed toward farmers and rural communities. Agriculture does far more than feed the population—it also maintains rural landscapes, preserves local communities, and safeguards cultural identities.
Yet this multifunctional role of agriculture is still neither sufficiently recognized nor adequately rewarded.
For the most part, agricultural unions have focused their efforts on prices, while paying much less attention to the broader environmental and social dimensions of farming. Historically, even the most influential organizations, such as the FNSEA, have not generally been perceived as leaders on environmental issues.
As a result, there remains a deep divide between two competing visions: on one hand, the pursuit of productivity and competitiveness, which is indispensable in international markets; on the other, the protection of natural ecosystems, which is too often portrayed as an unrealistic ideal disconnected from economic realities.
Even within a research institution such as CIRAD, where I work, these two perspectives continue to coexist—and frequently clash.
In my view, the debate should instead focus on agriculture’s ecological, territorial, and social functions.

Should chronic nutrition-related diseases be treated as a central public health priority in food policy?

K. N.: Absolutely, because they are increasing rapidly, particularly among younger people and increasingly sedentary urban populations.
In Western countries, the poorest are often the first victims of unhealthy diets, partly because they are unaware of the public support mechanisms available to help them.
In developing countries, the challenge is even broader, since food remains a powerful marker of social status. Urban consumers often prefer imported products, which are perceived as more prestigious, over locally produced food.
This is why genuine food education is essential.
Within the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU/UEMOA), for example, the month of October has been designated as “Consume Local Month” in order to encourage this cultural shift.

Should ultra-processed foods, additives, and substances such as PFAS be more strictly regulated to better protect consumers?

K. N.: Yes.
Despite its shortcomings, Nutri-Score is a step in the right direction because it provides consumers with useful information at the point of purchase.
But the broader issue concerns the balance between freedom and regulation.
Companies frequently invoke international competition as a reason to resist stricter standards. Yet in an interconnected global economy, markets cannot simply be left entirely unregulated.
Health and environmental standards will inevitably return to the forefront of public policy particularly in Europe because they are becoming indispensable to our collective survival.

Can we really talk about food sovereignty without addressing plastic packaging, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions?

K. N.: Clearly not.
These issues are now an integral part of the food sovereignty debate.
In many African countries where plastic bags remain widely used, large numbers of small ruminants die after swallowing discarded plastic packaging.
Even more worrying, plastic residues eventually enter the food chain—quite literally “from farm to fork.”
Added to this is the widespread problem of counterfeit veterinary medicines, which contaminate the entire livestock production chain.
Food sovereignty can therefore no longer be conceived without adopting a One Health approach, recognizing the interdependence of plant health, animal health, and human health.

In your view, what is the single most urgent lever for making the global food system fairer?

K. N.: A fairer distribution of wealth.
As long as hundreds of millions of people remain trapped in poverty, the overriding priority will continue to be producing enough food, often at the expense of quality, public health, and environmental protection.
Poverty is the objective ally of multinational corporations, which have little incentive to do better.
This challenge is particularly acute in Africa, where profound inequalities exist both between countries and within countries themselves.
If we are to move forward, we must redistribute wealth more fairly and place healthy, sustainable agriculture back at the heart of the collective project.