Genetically modified foods offer both promise and controversy. Photo: Joost J. Bakker IJmuiden (Flickr)

For decades, the term “genetically modified organism” has sounded like something inherently inedible. But a loud new voice is replying that the world should eat up anyway.

In January, philanthropist Bill Gates emerged as a leading advocate of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. In his annual letter, he claimed that any conceivable plan to feed our growing population includes investment and development in GMOs. Gates and other proponents believe that innovation in GMOs produce plants with higher yields, less susceptibility to disease and drought, and more ability to adapt to global climate changes.

Opponents of the technology paint a different picture. Last week, farmers from across America and Canada convened in New York to protest against GMOs, claiming that they destabilize agricultural yields and markets, have yet to be proven healthy and mostly benefit only a handful of multinational corporations. Resistance to GMOs has been more effective in other parts of the world, most notably in Europe where consumers' "overwhelming opposition to the technology" has led some companies to completely suspend GMO sales on the continent, despite the outright backing of GMOs by the European Commission.

As technology develops and the world’s population continues to grow, the debate will also continue. Should we invest in GMO innovation? Are GMOs part of the problem, or the solution in 21st century agriculture and global food security?

Can a small group of people lift themselves out of poverty if given enough capital?

Economist Jeffrey Sachs and the U.N. Millennium Village project are aiming to do just that. Through a community-led approach, the Millennium Villages Project addresses extreme poverty in rural Africa through projects designed around achieving the Millennium Development Goals — eight agreed-upon targets to end extreme poverty worldwide by 2015.

In total, there are 79 Millennium Villages spread across the continent, that are grouped in 12 clusters. The villages are located in different agro-ecological zones that are representative of the farming, water and disease challenges facing the continent. Sachs believes this is why the Millennium Village Project is a scalable model that can be adapted across the different regions of Africa.

Sachs' theory suggests that starting with a big commitment to just these few villages and their small-scale farming might be the key to poverty alleviation. Each Millennium Village Project team works through poverty issues in each village by providing access to advanced technology that can better health, education, and farming productivity. For example, agricultural techniques have been improved by the introduction of fertilizers and crop diversification.

There are still many skeptics of the Millennium Villages' approach to ending poverty. Relaxing taxes on imports like fertilizer could do more argues development consultant Sam Rich in The Wilson Quarterly. These villages may have seen some positive impact early on but many persistent issues remain: dependence on subsistence crops is still depleting the soil and major infrastructure issues, like bad roads and a lack of electricity, have still not been addressed.

Last week I had the chance to visit a Millennium Village called Tiby, located in Mali, West Africa. I had expected to witness a tightly run program, with strong, scalable results. Instead I was shocked to see how disorganized the program was and how little had been accomplished by its third year. The community-based committees in Tiby were in place but had yet to receive any training in planning or management.

Each Millennium Village costs $110 per person every year over a period of five years. The majority of the funds come from donor funding through the Millennium Villages program but also include funding from local governments, partner organizations, and the villagers themselves.

It's easy to criticize the Millennium Village approach for spending a lot of money on a relatively small a group of people but let's this into perspective. In the first six months of 2008, the U.S. government contributed $830,353,769 to the World Food Program. That same amount would be able to support 1.5 million people through the Millennium Villages Project. In the long-run, the per-person investment through the Millennium Villages Project actually saves money — if the project proves successful, and the beneficiaries become self-sufficient and no longer depend on distributions from humanitarian aid groups.

So, can a small group of people really lift themselves out of poverty if given enough capital?

My own impression of the project, albeit from the vantage point of a single village, is that it is a band-aid for the symptoms of poverty, rather than a program that effectively addresses the root causes. The initiative's statistics may suggest otherwise, but the reality is that there is no quick fix to alleviating extreme poverty.