Billme, you made an excellent point that supporting gm in any way makes you complicit in it's continuation. It is my understanding that the word "may" is used because the research is ongoing. Here are some samples of ongoing research from PubMed, each concluding that more research is needed: "1: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov;71(11):6719-29.Click here to read Click here to read Links Impact of Bt corn on rhizospheric and soil eubacterial communities and on beneficial mycorrhizal symbiosis in experimental microcosms. * Castaldini M, * Turrini A, * Sbrana C, * Benedetti A, * Marchionni M, * Mocali S, * Fabiani A, * Landi S, * Santomassimo F, * Pietrangeli B, * Nuti MP, * Miclaus N, * Giovannetti M. Istituto Sperimentale per lo Studio e la Difesa del Suolo, CRA, Florence, Italy. A polyphasic approach has been developed to gain knowledge of suitable key indicators for the evaluation of environmental impact of genetically modified Bt 11 and Bt 176 corn lines on soil ecosystems. We assessed the effects of Bt corn (which constitutively expresses the insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis, encoded by the truncated Cry1Ab gene) and non-Bt corn plants and their residues on rhizospheric and bulk soil eubacterial communities by means of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analyses of 16S rRNA genes, on the nontarget mycorrhizal symbiont Glomus mosseae, and on soil respiration. Microcosm experiments showed differences in rhizospheric eubacterial communities associated with the three corn lines and a significantly lower level of mycorrhizal colonization in Bt 176 corn roots. In greenhouse experiments, differences between Bt and non-Bt corn plants were detected in rhizospheric eubacterial communities (both total and active), in culturable rhizospheric heterotrophic bacteria, and in mycorrhizal colonization. Plant residues of transgenic plants, plowed under at harvest and kept mixed with soil for up to 4 months, affected soil respiration, bacterial communities, and mycorrhizal establishment by indigenous endophytes. The multimodal approach utilized in our work may be applied in long-term field studies aimed at monitoring the real hazard of genetically modified crops and their residues on nontarget soil microbial communities." "1: Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2005 Mar;16(3):524-8. Links [Effects of Bt corn straw decomposition on soil enzyme activities and soil fertility] [Article in Chinese] * Wang J, * Feng Y, * Luo S. Institute of Tropical and Subtropical Ecology, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China. wangjw@scau.edu.cn An incubation test with the straws of Bt corn 34B24 and its non-transgenic isogenic line 34B23, Bt corn Nongda 61, and non-transgenic Nongda 3138 was conducted to study the potential effects of Bt corn straw decomposition on soil enzyme activities and soil fertility. No significant difference in soil protease and acid phosphatase activities was found between treatments 34B24 and 34B23; but on day 75 of incubation, soil dehydrogenase activity was significantly higher in treatment 34B24 than in treatment 34B23. The same was true for soil invertase activity on days 15,45, 60 and 75. Soil urease activity in treatment 34B24 was significantly increased on day 30, but decreased on days 45 and 75. A significant difference in several soil enzyme activities was also observed between the treatments of two Bt corn hybrids and their conventional cultivars at some sampling days. After incubation for 90 days, the contents of soil available P and K were significantly lower in treatment 34B24 than in treatment 34B23. The differences mentioned above resulted from the composition of test corn straws, which may be affected by the Bt gene transformation process. In order to accurately assess the effects of Bt corn straw decomposition on soil ecosystem, a standard classification system of soil enzyme activities should be established for different soil types from different regions." "Erratum in: Mol Ecol. 2003 Aug;12(8):2279. Effects of transgenic Bt corn litter on the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. * Zwahlen C, * Hilbeck A, * Howald R, * Nentwig W. Zoological Institute, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 6, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland. claudia.zwahlen@gmx.net A 200-day study was carried out to investigate the impact of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn on immature and adult Lumbricus terrestris in the field and in the laboratory. Another objective of this study was to develop test methods that could be used for standard testing of the impact of transgenic plants on different earthworm species in the field and in the laboratory. For this purpose two different experiments were involved, a laboratory experiment with adult L. terrestris and a field experiment with immature L. terrestris. No lethal effects of transgenic Bt corn on immature and adult earthworms were observed. Immature L. terrestris in the field had a very similar growth pattern when fed either (Bt+) or (Bt-) corn litter. No significant differences in relative weights of (Bt+) and (Bt-) corn-fed adult L. terrestris were observed during the first 160 days of the laboratory trial, but after 200 days adult L. terrestris had a significant weight loss of 18% of their initial weight when fed (Bt+) corn litter compared to a weight gain of 4% of the initial weight of (Bt-) corn-fed earthworms. Further studies are necessary to see whether or not this difference in relative weight was due to the Bt toxin or other factors discussed in the study. Degradation of Cry1Ab toxin in corn residues was significantly slower in the field than at 10 degrees C in the laboratory. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results indicated that earthworms in both experiments were exposed to the Bt toxin throughout the whole experimental time."

I'm just guessing here, but since the ingredients are so simple, & there doesn't appear to be a catalyst (like lye) to cause a true saponification to occur, (which chemically changes the ingredients into something "new"), & there isn't a lathering oil, like coconut oil (I think...brain is very blonde right now....) it may be a soap that just doesn't lather much. Again, if I'm remembering correctly (see comment above...) soap made with olive oil alone, does produce a harder soap, BUT doesn't really lather. That's why a lot of CP soaps use a combination of olive, palm & coconut oils to produce a nice bar that lathers well, & holds up well. I don't know that adding more glycerin will do much good, not sure if curing it any longer will help or not.... I'm sure there are some folks around who have more info on this than me...... Just guessing, Hazel

Sorry, already have 10 testers lined up, some people from across the country, a couple are my wholesale customers.....I usually just pick my scents by what I like, & by "instinct", but this time I decided to to some scent testing, just to see how close, or far off I REALLY am......then again, I may NOT want to know. I also thought it would be a good idea to let the wholesale folks preview upcoming things........ Depending on how this goes, I may just go back to the old way (me). It's been a borderline pain....I spent the weekend making tons of ½ size bars of soap, wrapping & labeling, now packing & getting ready to ship. I just hope these people get back to me with the results.....I've had to chase the soap base testers down, with the exception of Jill...she was the ONLY one who gave me detailed, scent by scent info, which I GREATLY appreciated! Anyway, off to pack the soap, & the ebay auctions....... Hazel

Some suggest you grate the soap up, add some water, then let it sit for 24 hours (or overnight) before you try to melt it on the stove. It's pretty much a guess and try situation since soaps are all different formulations and therefore melt (or don't!) at different rates. When I tried it (and failed - U.S. 'soap' which is really detergents), I used very low heat and tried for a long time. Good luck, Nookie. Let us know if you are successful!