So does Farm Simulator 2013 take you into the world of GMOs much?
I like the point that wheat with DNA from insects, mice or fish isn't technically "wheat" any more, hence the name "GMO" (genetically modified organism).
Maybe the way around the labeling controversy is to say: you don't have to say if it's GM, but you certainly can't call it wheat, or rice or whatever. Not if it has genes from an alien species.
So make up new words and symbols if you have to (marketing will figure it out). Primary ingredient: organisms. "I can't believe it's not wheat bread" might be a slogan.
So what was the followup on that 1999 case where Thai substance control detected transgenic wheat from the Pacific Northwest?
GM papaya saved the day in Hawaii, while making it safer to grow non-GMO breeds alongside. The gene for the "coat" of the viral attacker is what's transplanted.
Is it that the protective viral coat's protein protects against itself? Yes, in a sense. This trick has been used with tobacco and potatoes too.
Speaking of legislation, I think the proposal from around here was to remove the base institutionally from Cuba (a change in jurisdiction) -- similar to proposals for Okinawa in other words, a re-zoning if you will.
Although transgenics get much of the attention, the rise in celiac disease could be due to other changes to the wheat genome brought about by selective breeding, to boost the gluten levels. From Wikipedia:
Many who have found themselves newly intolerant of gluten or wheat in the 2000s have wondered if genetic alterations of wheat through selective breeding might be the cause. From 2002 to 2005 a variety called "Hard White Wheat" was introduced into the US market, with varieties that were developed in the late 90s through 2004. [50] It is unknown if the introduction of this wheat variety is at the root of the current explosion in gluten/wheat intolerance, but the timing suggests it is an area that scientists should explore.The US has enough self discipline to eventually phase out colonial holdings, such as imperial bases in other nations, as geopolitics permits. Either that or it's hardly self directed enough to be considered "a government". No runaway empire gets a foothold through the Constitution.
Closing bases here doesn't mean others can't be opened there, with more intelligence in the design, and with a clearer sense of mission. A president has powers to effect change in this manner.
The Cuban government opposes the presence of the naval base, claiming that the lease is invalid under international law as it was not a sovereign nation at the time. The United States argues this point is irrelevant because Cuba apparently ratified the lease post-revolution, and with full sovereignty, when it cashed one rent check in accordance with the disputed treaty.[2]The immaturity of this relationship is obvious. Is it a "Vegas vendetta" that keeps Congress paralyzed? Eating a cake while continuing to have it, in an uneaten state, sometimes looks like "pursuing happiness".
The US is looking like another sorrowful giant, so weighed down with the trappings of empire as to be rendered immobilized and unrealistic about its prospects in this hampered state. Someone should write an I Ching for nations.
