Those looking to spin the real estate roulette wheel might want to steer clear of Miami. It ranks first on our list of the nation’s riskiest real estate markets.

There, a high share of adjustable-rate mortgages, high vacancy rates and slumping prices still too elevated for the local populous means should long-term bond yields climb, interest rates jump or the housing crisis linger much longer, things could go from bad to worse.

Affairs are not much better farther north–or west. Following in Miami’s wake are Orlando, Sacramento and San Francisco.

Our ranking of the country’s riskiest markets measures which of the 40 largest metros are most vulnerable to future shocks. We’ve done this by assessing which have the most strained lending conditions, and which markets are the most overvalued and likely to face downward price pressures.

Many of the cities on our list–like San Francisco and San Diego–are traditional high fliers where speculators can still make a lot of money if they pick the right neighborhood or hit the price trough. Of course, they might also take a serious bath. Others, like Chicago or Phoenix, are generally stable markets that are currently under significant strains. Finally, some, like Cincinnati or Kansas City, are precariously teetering and are not well equipped to handle further downturn.
Crunching The Numbers
A good place to start in assessing risk is the state of the local mortgage market.

Take adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs, in which borrowers, for a limited time, usually five or seven years, make interest-only or reduced-rate payments. The most obvious danger in this is that at the end of the five- or seven-year term, monthly payments increase to a rate the borrower is unable to sustain. Given Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke’s continuing worries about inflation, economists say there’s a good chance rates could go up in the next couple of years, meaning that the increased costs of lending will be passed along to ARM borrowers, and that can mean higher rates of defaults.

What’s more, high ARM share generally means a market is unaffordable to its residents.

The metros with the highest shares of ARMs, according to the National Association of Realtors, are in San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles, respectively. These three cities are also the most overpriced, according to our price-to-earnings measure. And these areas are three of the four least affordable to the local population, according to the National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo’s affordability index. If rates go up or lending tightens, fewer will be able to buy in, bringing the markets to a screeching halt.

Another arbiter of risk? Cities with a high proportion of mortgages with loan-to-value ratios in excess of 90%. Loan-to-value (LTV) measures the size of the mortgage to a home’s overall value. In a standard home buy, the down payment is 10% of the overall value, meaning the LTV is 90%.

When the loan-to-value ratio is above 90%, it means buyers have little equity in their homes. And homeowners with low equity are far more likely to default or walk away from a mortgage. If the market teeters and lenders take a hit from defaults, it can depress prices overall, as is currently being seen with the subprime lending fallout. For that reason, Kansas City is particularly vulnerable. It has a 39% share of mortgages with LTV ratios above 90%. The median rate for cities on our list was 11%, according to the National Association of Realtors.

We next mixed in a price-to-earnings ratio for each market. (Like the P/E of a stock, this value attempts to measure the price a homeowner would pay for one dollar of return.) Using data from the National Association of Realtors, the U.S. Census Bureau and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, we took each market’s median home price and divided it by annual rents minus taxes and insurance for those properties.

The price-to-earnings ratio highlights two significant risks. It magnifies risk factors in overly expensive markets in which there is more money at stake. For example, a 5% drop in median home prices in San Francisco is possible; but the nominal equivalent, a 24% price drop in Dallas, is not something the market is likely to bear. Second, overvalued bubble markets are more likely to face downward price pressures in a slumping market as overvalued markets are, by definition, most likely to experience a correction.

A final factor was vacancy rates. It’s not a complicated or glamorous measurement, but it’s difficult to find a better indicator of supply and demand. Orlando’s staggering 5.2% vacancy rate represents a significant risk factor for the city. Strong local economic indicators like job growth and immigration significantly mitigate that risk, but it is in a vulnerable position should there be an economic slowdown or a disruptive hurricane season.

Two larger cities that performed very well by this measure were Los Angeles and New York, which ranked fourth and eighth for lowest vacancy rate. While both cities had high ARM shares and high P/Es, their low vacancy rates bode well for those markets.

New technologies, a proliferation of resources, and a disenchantment with the corporate world are making Generation Y the most entrepreneurial in history. From magazine publishing to delivering fresh-baked cookies, the rising business stars named to our annual 30 Under 30 list are transforming existing industries and blazing trails with new ones:

#1: Ben Kaufman, MOPHIE
Ben Kaufman 

Age: 20
Location: Burlington, Vt.
2006 Revenue: $1 million
Employees: 14
Year founded: 2005
What it does: Mophie makes cases, splitters, arms band, and clips for the iPod. The iPod accessory market may be crowded these days, but Kaufman’s goal is to turn Mophie into a community-based product-development company that will solicit ideas for all kinds of new products — not just iPod add-ons — from a 50,000 member online user base. He’s got $2 million in venture capital and a former top exec from Burton Snowboard on board to help him do it. Revenue is expected to hit $5 million this year.
#2: Sean Belnick, BIZCHAIR.COM
Sean Belnick 

Age: 20
Location: Kennesaw, Ga.
2006 Revenue: $24 million
Employees: 75
Year founded: 2001
What it does: At 14, Sean Belnick started a direct-shipping company for office furniture from his bedroom — with $500. The company now stocks many of the products it sells in a new 327,000-square-foot warehouse in Canton, Ga., and has branched out into home furniture, medical equipment, and school furniture. Notable clients include the Pentagon, Microsoft, and “American Idol.”
#3: Bo Menkiti, THE MENKITI GROUP
Bo Menkiti 

Age: 30
Location: Washington, D.C.
2006 Revenue: $640,000
Employees: 10
Year founded: 2004
What it does: A Harvard MBA, Bo Menkiti sold his own home in the capital’s Columbia Heights neighborhood to launch an urban real estate development, brokerage, and sales firm aimed at first-time buyers in the underserved middle market. In less than three years, his team has developed 33,000 square feet of residential and commercial property and brokered more than $60 million worth of real estate in the region. What’s next for Menkiti? Developing a new 30-unit affordable housing building from the ground up.
More from Inc.com:

• The Entrepreneurial Agenda

• The Next Big Ideas

• Start-Up Secrets 

#4: Sam Altman, LOOPT
Age: 22
Location: Mountain View, Calif.
2006 Revenue: undisclosed
Employees: 30
Year founded: 2005
What it does: Loopt software provides location-based functions for cell phones, allowing users to see where their friends are on a map. The software also sends text alerts when friends come in close proximity to one another, and can search for nearby restaurants. It’ll even tell you what spots your friends have tagged as favorites. Loopt’s service is currently available on Boost Mobile, and is expected to launch on Sprint and other carriers within months. Altman says he wants to bring the Internet out of the home and into the wild. “The company’s mission is to enhance, improve, and make more of real-world interaction,” he says.
#5: Katie Kerrigan, KATHRYN KERRIGAN
Age: 27
Location: Libertyville, Ill.
2006 Revenue: $57,000
Employees: 1 full-time, 2 part-time
Year founded: 2005
What it does: When Kerrigan, a former college athlete, entered the professional world, she was discouraged by the lack of stylish shoes for tall women. At six-feet tall with a size 11 shoe, she began looking for solutions. While getting her MBA, she drafted a business plan for a company that sold dress shoes to women with larger feet — sizes 10 and above. In 2005, Kerrigan launched her website, KathrynKerrigan.com, where other women like herself can find everything from stylish high heels to trendy flats. Kerrigan works with a craftsman in Italy to create her original designs. Her shoes can be found in boutiques nationwide and in her new flagship store, which opened this year in Libertyville, Ill. Sales are expected to quadruple this year.
#6 - #8: Byron Myers, Ali Perry, and Brenton Taylor, INOGEN
Ages: 27 (Myers), 25 (Perry), and 26 (Taylor)
Location: Goleta, Calif.
2006 Revenue: $15 million
Employees: 100
Year founded: 2001
What it does: Winning a business plan competition at the University of California Santa Barbara prompted these friends to take their idea for an oxygen concentrator and actually form a company. Perry’s grandmother complained about the bulkiness and inconvenience of her old oxygen machine, so the trio designed their compact device to filter out the nitrogen from room air, eliminating the hassle of having oxygen tanks delivered. Inogen’s machine can also be plugged in anywhere or used on the go with a rechargeable lithium ion battery. The company has sold more than 10,000 devices.
#9: Raj Lahoti, ONLINE GURU
Age: 25
Location: San Diego
2006 Revenue: $11.5 million
Employees: 15
Year founded: 2003
What it does: After a few years dabbling in Internet domain acquisition and traffic brokering, Raj Lahoti set out to build up one of his brother’s domains in order to provide meaningful content in an area that, well, generally lacks it. DMV.ORG, the “Online Unofficial Guide to the DMV,” aggregates information from the (often dreaded) Department of Motor Vehicles in each state — all in one place. Users can access information on everything from applying for a license to ordering a driving record, without the aggravation of standing in the DMV’s endless lines.
#10 - #12: Geoff Cook, Dave Cook, Catherine Cook, MYYEARBOOK.COM
Ages: 29 (Geoff), 19 (Dave), and 17 (Catherine)
Location: New Hope, Pa.
2006 Revenue: undisclosed
Employees: 25
Year founded: 2005
What it does: A social networking site for teens, myYearbook.com was hatched around the family dinner table by siblings Catherine and Dave two years ago. With older brother Geoff now on board, the site has since grown from a single high school to more than 3 million members and more than 4.5 million visitors a month, ranking it third among all social networking sites in the United States, behind MySpace and Facebook.
Read more about the “Top 30 Entrepreneurs Under 30″ at Inc.com

#13: Brian Taylor, Kernel Season’s
#14: Miles Munz, Interviewstream
#15: Randy Bitting, Interviewstream
#16: David Levich, Icedoutgear.com
#17: Dan Gershon, Icedoutgear.com
#18: Eric Liberman, Icedoutgear.com
#19: Ben Goldhirsh, Good
#20: Seth Berkowitz, Insomnia Cookies
#21: Alison Barnard, In-Jean-Ius
#22: Will Pearson, Mental Floss
#23: Mangesh Hattikudur, Mental Floss
#24: Nick Kenner, Just Salad
#25: Rob Crespi, Just Salad
#26: Hayden Hamilton, Greenprint
#27: Benjamin Sann, Bestparking.com
#28: Jason Wright, Feed Granola Co.
#29: Jason Osborn, Feed Granola Co.
#30: Alexis Demko, Lil Bogies

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — One of Michael Vick’s co-defendants pleaded guilty Monday to federal dogfighting conspiracy charges and agreed to fully cooperate with the government in its prosecution of the Atlanta Falcons star and two other men.

Tony Taylor, 34, who will be sentenced Dec. 14, said he was not promised any specific sentence in return for his cooperation.

Taylor faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, but federal sentencing guidelines likely will call for less. The guideline range will be determined by the court’s probation office, and U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson can depart from that range if he finds aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

“You’re pleading guilty and taking your chances, right?” Hudson asked Taylor.

He responded, “Yes.”

Taylor had the same answer when Hudson asked: “You have agreed to cooperate fully with the United States, is that right?”

Taylor, of Hampton, entered his plea to conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities, and conspiring to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture.

Vick and two other co-defendants pleaded not guilty last week to the same charges.

The written plea agreement requires Taylor to “testify truthfully and completely at any grand juries, trials or other proceedings.” It says any truthful information provided by Taylor cannot form the basis of a stiffer sentence or additional charges.

Prosecutors already have said a superseding indictment will be issued next month, which could mean more charges against Vick and the remaining co-defendants.

Taylor and his attorney, Stephen A. Hudgins of Newport News, refused to answer reporters’ questions as they left the federal courthouse after the 15-minute hearing.

Prosecutors claimed in a July 17 indictment that Taylor found the Surry County property that Vick purchased and used as the site of “Bad Newz Kennels,” a dogfighting enterprise.

“The `Bad Newz Kennels’ operation and gambling moneys were almost exclusively funded by Vick,” a statement of facts supporting the plea agreement and signed by Taylor says.

The statement also lists several dogfights that Taylor claims Vick attended in Virginia and other states. The principals in the dogfighting ring split any winnings, and Taylor — who spent most of his time raising and training the pit bulls — used his share for living expenses, according to the statement.

Taylor also confirmed the indictment’s claim that he helped purchase pit bulls and killed at least two dogs that fared poorly in test fights.

According to the 18-page indictment, the dogfighting ring executed underperforming dogs by drowning, hanging and other brutal means. It alleges that the fights offered purses as high as $26,000.

Taylor left the enterprise after a falling out with co-defendant Quanis L. Phillips and others in September 2004, according to the statement of facts.

The grisly details outlined in the indictment have fueled protests and public outrage against Vick. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has banned Vick from the Falcons’ training camp while the league investigates.

Vick and Purnell A. Peace, 35, of Virginia Beach, and Phillips, 28, of Atlanta, are scheduled for trial Nov. 26. They remain free without bond.

Genetically Modified (GM) foods are produced from genetically modified organisms (GMO) which have had their genome altered through genetic engineering techniques. The general principle of producing a GMO is to insert DNA that has been taken from another organism and modified in the laboratory into an organism’s genome to produce both new and useful traits or phenotypes. Typically this is done using DNA from certain types of bacteria. GM Foods have been available since the 1990s, with the principal ones being derived from plants; soybean, corn, canola and cotton seed oil.

Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labelling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.

History of genetically modified foods
The first commercially grown genetically modified food crop was the Flavr Savr tomato which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene.[2] Calgene was allowed to release it into the market in 1994 without any special labeling,[3] where it was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at two to five times the price of standard tomatoes. However, production problems[2] and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from becoming profitable. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996.[4] Its labeling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment which proved that, at the time, European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods. This attitude would be drastically changed after outbreaks of Mad Cow Disease weakened consumer trust in government regulators, and protesters rallied against the introduction of Monsanto’s “Roundup-Ready” soybeans.[citation needed] The next GM crops included insect-protected cotton[5][6] and herbicide-tolerant soybeans[7] both of which were commercially released in 1996. These crops have been widely adopted in the United States. They have also been extensively planted in several other countries (Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) where agriculture is a major part of the total economy. Other GM crops include insect-protected maize and herbicide-tolerant maize, cotton, and rapeseed varieties.
Abundance of GM crops
Between 1996 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were in the United States.[citation needed]

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2005 the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (94,000 km² in 2005 versus 50,000 km² in 2004.)[8] There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) It is predicted that in 2006/7 32,000 km² of GM cotton will be harvested in India (up more than 100 percent from the previous season). Indian national average cotton yields of GM cotton were seven times lower in 2002, because the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered was not well suited to the climate of India and failed. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect resistance has encouraged the adoption of better performing hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially reduced losses to insect predation. Economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented.[9][10]

In 2003, countries that grew 99 percent of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63 percent), Argentina (21 percent), Canada (6 percent), Brazil (4 percent), China (4 percent), and South Africa (1 percent).[11] The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75 percent of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient[citation needed] . In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide within the plant itself is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These constitute “input-traits” are aimed to financially benefit the producers, have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers.

In the US, by 2006 89% of the planted area of soybeans, 83 percent of cotton, and 61 percent maize was genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensus Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area.[12]
Future developments
Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also at the same time be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development.
Crops under development
The following GM crops are in development

sweet potato resistant to the feathery mottle virus[13]
further development of golden rice to increase levels or bioavailability of iron, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin E and improve the quality of proteins[14]
maize with increased levels of the amino acid lysine and protein for animal feeds[15]
a variety of plants able to better tolerate non-biological stresses which are commonly encountered in a normal growing season, such as water[16][17][18] and nitrogen limitation, or survive extreme growing conditions, such as high-salinity, drought,[19] acidic soils, or hot weather. Such traits can provide more reliable crop performance over an extended period of cultivation.
Transgenic rice has been developed by a Californian company[20] to improve oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea. In sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin America and Asia, diarrhea is the second highest infectious killer of children under the age of five, accounting for some two million deaths a year. Recent 2005-6 trials in a Peruvian Hospital have demonstrated that specialized milk proteins lactoferrin and lysozyme made in transgenic rice plants improve the effectiveness of oral rehydration solution used to treat diarrhea.[21]
In the USA regulation of a genetically modified food is determined by the objective characteristics of the food and the intended use of the food, irrespective of the way it was developed. FDA policy states that a formal pre-market review by the FDA is to be taken when the objective characteristics of any substance added to the food raises safety issues.[22]

Prior to marketing a new GM food product, manufacturers are required to submit documentation to the FDA to demonstrate its safety and then await approval before selling it to consumers.[23]

The context for assessing safety of novel foods is the fact that existing foods often contain toxic components but are still able to be consumed safely. For instance, potatoes and tomatoes can contain toxic levels of solanine and alpha-tomatine alkaloids respectively,[24] and this situation is recognised in the concept of “Substantial Equivalence” that was developed by the OECD in 1993 as a criterion for identifying whether a novel food is at least as safe as the equivalent existing food. The US FDA takes a safety assessment approach that is consistent with this OECD concept in their regulation of novel foods (including those made by recombinant DNA methods). This policy is outlined in an FDA statement.[25]

Critics of GM food believe this regulatory model fails to sufficiently protect consumers and claim that the FDA is subject to pressure and influence by industry. One concern voiced is that a novel crop may have unintended changes created during the insertion of new genetic material. On the other hand, plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.[26][27]
Intellectual property

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
Main article: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
Enforcement of Patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of the occurrence of Gene flow. In 1998, 95-98 percent of about 10 km² planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto.[28] The initial source of the plants was undetermined, and could have been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However, the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that Schmeiser must have intentionally selected for it. The court determined that Schmeiser had saved seed from areas on and adjacent to his property where Roundup had been sprayed, such as ditches and near power poles.[29]

Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew Roundup Ready plants without paying royalties(Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor.[28][29] The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto’s patents covered only the gene itself and glyphosate resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety.

In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada’s director of public affairs stated that “It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada’s policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer’s field by accident…Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act.”[30] Currently Percy Schmeiser spends a large amount of his time traveling and speaking about how Monsanto ruined his career as a farmer. He also talks about the possible harms of genetically modified and why others in addition to himself should be protesting it.
Coexistence and traceability
In many countries, and especially in the European Union, consumers demand the choice between foods of genetically modified, conventional or organic origins. This requires a labelling system as well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM organisms at production level and throughout the whole processing chain.

Research has demonstrated, that coexistence of GM crops can be realised by several agricultural measures, such as isolation distances or biological containment strategies.

For traceability, the OECD has introduced a “unique identifier” which is given to any GMO when it is approved. This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing.

Many countries have established labelling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and traceability. Research projects such as Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability.
Benefits and Controversies
See GM food controversy.
Policy around the world
Some argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk.[citation needed]

Others oppose genetic engineering on the grounds that genetic modifications might have unforeseen consequences, both in the initially modified organisms and their environments. For example, certain strains of maize have been developed that are toxic to plant eating insects (see Bt corn). It has been alleged those strains cross-pollinated with other varieties of wild and domestic maize and passed on these genes with a putative impact on Maize biodiversity.[31] Subsequent to the publication of these results, several scientists pointed out that the conclusions were based on experiments with design flaws. It is well known that the results from the Polymerase Chain Reaction method of analysing DNA can often be confounded by sample contamination and experimental artifacts. Appropriate controls can be included in experiments to eliminate these as a possible explanation of the results - however these controls were not included in the methods used by Quist and Chapela.[32] After this criticism Nature, the scientific journal where this data was originally published concluded that “the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper”.[33] More recent attempts to replicate the original studies have concluded that genetically modified corn is absent from southern Mexico in 2003 and 2004 [6] Also in dispute is the impact on biodiversity of the introgression of transgenes into wild populations [7]. Unless a transgene offers a massive selective advantage in a wild population, a transgene that enters such a population will be maintained at a low gene frequency. In such situations it can be argued that such an introgression actually increases biodiversity rather than lowers it.

Activists opposed to genetic engineering say that with current recombinant technology there is no way to ensure that genetically modified organisms will remain under control, and the use of this technology outside secure laboratory environments carries potentially unacceptable risks to both farmed and wild ecosystems.

Potential impact on biodiversity may occur if herbicide-tolerant crops are sprayed with herbicide to the extent that no wild plants (’weeds’) are able to survive. Plants toxic to insects may mean insect-free crops. This could result in declines in other wildlife (e.g. birds) which feed on weed seeds and/or insects for food resources. The recent (2003) farm scale studies in the UK found this to be the case with GM sugar beet and GM rapeseed, but not with GM maize (though in the last instance, the non-GM comparison maize crop had also been treated with environmentally-damaging pesticides subsequently (2004) withdrawn from use in the EU).

Although some scientists have claimed that selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering,[34] (e.g., maize was modified from teosinte, dogs have evolved with human intervention over the course of tens of thousands of years from wolves), others assert that modern transgenesis-based genetic engineering is capable of delivering changes faster than, and sometimes of different types from, traditional breeding methods.[35]

Proponents of current genetic techniques as applied to food plants cite the benefits that the technology can have, for example, in the harsh agricultural conditions of Africa. They say that with modifications, existing crops would be able to thrive under the relatively hostile conditions providing much needed food to their people. Proponents also cite golden rice and golden rice 2, genetically engineered rice varieties (still under development) that contain elevated vitamin A levels. There is hope that this rice may alleviate vitamin A deficiency that contributes to the death of millions and permanent blindness of 500,000 annually.[citation needed]

Proponents say that genetically-engineered crops are not significantly different from those modified by nature or humans in the past, and are as safe or even safer than such methods. There is gene transfer between unicellular eukaryotes and prokaryotes. There have been no known genetic catastrophes as a result of this. They argue that animal husbandry and crop breeding are also forms of genetic engineering that use artificial selection instead of modern genetic modification techniques. It is politics, they argue, not economics or science, that causes their work to be closely investigated, and for different standards to apply to it than those applied to other forms of agricultural technology.

Proponents also note that species or genera barriers have been crossed in nature in the past. An oft-cited example is today’s modern red wheat variety, which is the result of two natural crossings made long ago. It is made up of three groups of seven chromosomes. Each of those three groups came from a different wild wheat grass. First, a cross between two of the grasses occurred, creating the durum wheats, which were the commercial grains of the first civilizations up through the Roman Republic. Then a cross occurred between that 14-chromosome durum wheat and another wild grass to create what became modern red wheat at the time of the Roman Empire.
Economic and political effects
Many opponents of current genetic engineering believe the increasing use of GM in major crops has caused a power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology companies, which are gaining excessive control over the production chain of crops and food, and over the farmers that use their products, as well.[citation needed]
Many proponents of some current genetic engineering techniques believe it will lower pesticide usage and has brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in developing nations [8]. A few genetic engineering licenses allow farmers in less economically developed countries to save seeds for next year’s planting.[citation needed]
In August 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN’s World Food Programme. Although there were claims that this left a famine-stricken population without food aid, the U.N. program succeeded in replacing the rejected grain with other sources, including some foods purchased locally with European cash donations. In rejecting the maize, the government cited the “Precautionary Principle” and also the desire to protect future possibilities of grain exports to Europe.[citation needed]
In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize. [9]. However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying “We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods.” [10] [11]
In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Venezuela. [12]
In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, although these were agreed authorized by the EU. [13]
On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly due to accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops.[36] The U.S. government has since declared the rice safe for human consumption, and exports to some countries have since resumed.

A relationship is like a cable TV package. There’s plenty of comedy, plenty of action, and maybe even the occasional bit of dirty programming on demand.

But there are also a lot of dead spots on the dial that you wish you could just skip over. Those dead spots typically come as the relationship equivalent of the WWE channel - highly predictable fights, skirmishes, and verbal sparring you’ve seen too many times before.

These fleeting spats and lingering problems can wound a relationship. The source of relationship fights certainly varies from couple to couple; in a survey of more than 2,000 men for my book “Men, Love & Sex,” 38 percent of men said they fight about money, 24 percent said they fight about sex, 13 percent said they fight about in-laws.

While what you fight about is certainly important, so is how you fight. Fight nicely and you can solve the biggest of problems; fight nasty and the cap on a tube of toothpaste can turn into a federal case. To deal with the actual content of your relationship problems, you can clear one hurdle simply by knowing your partner’s fighting style - what he does and why he does it. Do you recognize your man here?

The D.A.
Personality Type: Competitive

About 20 percent of men in this survey admit that they say they fight like lawyers - trying to demolish a woman’s arguments with logical, rational reasoning to catch her in a lie or make her confess. This tactic may mean that the guy wins the logical side of the disagreement, but his battering-ram style won’t win him any emotional points in the long run.

The Surfer
Personality Type: Lllllaaaaaaaid Back

Goes with the flow, dude. About 15 percent of men responded that the way they fight is by not fighting at all. This kind of guy lets life roll off his back - he understands the woman’s point of view, and he tries to make her happy, even at his own expense. Works well in many cases, but not all the time - especially for the woman who subconsciously may want a fight, just to make sure he’s as emotionally invested in the relationship as she is.

The Old-School Patriarch
Personality Type: Stuffy

Silent treatment. No words, no confession, no way you’re going to trip him up into seeing it your way, because he’s not saying a word. The passive-aggressive move - the most frustrating of all fighting tactics - only works to infuriate, which is exactly why he does it. The short-term satisfaction of making her madder usually doesn’t pay long-term dividends.

The Salesman
Personality Type: Smooth

About a quarter of men admitted in the survey that they will say “I love you” to get themselves out of arguments. It’s a good, charming move -one that can work, and one that he most likely uses when he knows he’s wrong. He uses adoration to substitute for confession.

The Poet
Personality Type: Stubborn and Soft

He does something wrong, he knows it, he tries to explain why he did it, she doesn’t buy it, he backs off. Now, he reverts to his preferred method of communication: email. The carefully crafted message - complete with confession, explanation, compliments, and a dash of humor - allows him a chance to speak without conflict. It’s safe, though a smidge cowardly. But he uses it to control his feelings and the message - and to end the argument as soon as possible.

So you can see that couples have as many ways of arguing as Eskimos have terms for describing snow. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. When two people are close, there’s bound to be some friction. Watching anything from the great Tracy-Hepburn movie collection will show you that when sparks fly, heat is produced.

It can either burn down the house, or warm it up. To make sure it’s the latter, be sure to use your sparks to clear the tinder of misunderstandings and annoyances, so the relationship is free to grow tall and strong.

A bond that’s worth fighting for is most definitely worth fighting over, so long as both partners are willing to listen to their partner, and change their behavior, for the good of the couple.

Have your own stories, observations and tips? Share ‘em here.