Here's the actual study...and it's a good one raising legit concerns. http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf The concerns aren't really important to animals (unless one cares about welfare) because pigs rarely live long enough to be effected by this from a decline standpoint before they're killed in slaughter. The high corn diet fed pigs is extremely unnatural as it is...inflammation of pig guts (stomach/colon) is already around 10-15% as it is, even with conventional/organic/whatever feed. The findings do open up questions of looking for this in humans. The problem in looking for a negative here is most humans are not eating a heavy or mostly GMO diet, especially non-processed BT GMOs (which are the most suspect in this study). Animals are eating it for every meal, multiple times a day, every day. Allergic or sensitivity to certain CRY proteins, or long-term exposure effects are what is going to effect most humans...along with how effective/present the CRY proteins are once extremely processed (the mode most humans get these GMO proteins into their system). A few certain CRY proteins (crystal-type bacterial proteins) are thought to be suspect in this mode of action...mostly BT CRYs. An effect on reproductive organ thickening was also found in the study. So far it's not had much of an effect (no economical effect) on reproduction in the real world (contrary to some alarmist articles where speculation of "could" is turned into "has" by some people along with isolated incidents some latch onto). If there was an economic hit in the market with this issue there would be a market for non-GMO feed for breeding/pregnant cows/pigs/etc...and there isn't a market for it. There was also a weird male/female ratio skew...the stomach issues were statistically more significant in males. This study is probably going to be a starting point and corner-stone into further study being built upon the findings and issues brought up by this study. There's a lot of "starting points" for further research exposed here.

Thank you everyone for your input. It has been very helpful. My reason for asking about such things is that I recently inherited a group of plants and a list thereof and I am trying to update the list to be more modern. The list is dated 1984 and looking around online I can see that it is somewhat outdated. So I have been trying to figure out what is more professional and what is more modern when it comes to listing plants. (It's easier when you buy a plant with a modern label.) For example, a section on the original list might read Aizoaceae - Carruanthus caninus - Lithops -- aucampiae v. fluminalis -- bromfieldii v. glaudinae -- dinteri v. frederici C.180 -- dinteri v. multipunctata -- dorotheae (just to pick a random group on the front page). Looking around online, I see so much stuff about author's names, synonyms, and so on and I find that a lot of the information conflicts (or seems to) so that I can seldom tell for sure if I have made the list any better by "updating" it or if I've only made it worse. Using my above example, I have rewritten the list this way: Aizoaceae - Carruanthus ringens (L.) Boom (C. caninus (Lam.) Schwantes) - Lithops -- L. aucampiae var. fluminalis Cole -- L. bromfieldii var. glaudinae Cole -- L. dinteri var. frederici Cole C.180 -- L. dinteri var. multipunctata de Boer -- L. dorotheae Nel Here I have attempted to update the epithet of each (where necessary) and to include the author's names. It confuses at times, however. For example Cole seems to mean more than one person with that same last name depending what web site you look at. Is the author name always necessary and, if so, where exactly in the whole name is it supposed to go? Sometimes I see a name come before "var." and other times only at the end of the whole name. Other times still it comes in both places so that names appear in two different spots. By the way, the sites I have been using the most are http://www.theplantlist.org and http://www.tropicos.org. I've also made some use of Wikipedia but I do not trust it as much. If anyone has any criticism of my alterations to the list or any additional advice, I welcome any input that will help me be more professional in my list. Thank you again. It is maddening trying to figure all of this out on my own. P. S. If there are any mistakes in my revised, list they are not intentional. I am copying and pasting out of my Latex PDF file and my computer doesnâÂÂt always cooperate. This post was edited by Reuel on Mon, Dec 8, 14 at 16:50

Sorry for leaving you questions unanswered for so long. I googled "John Brooke" for hints of what he might be getting at but came up with only variations of the statement quoted above. At this point, I'm not even sure what "cultural meaning" means. So, we might as well discuss ID. This article in today's NYTimes about the Board's redefinition of "Science" is alarming. It takes care of the problem with muddling the distinction of science and faith, making them one in the same. What if the U.S. Supreme Court is left to decide this issue? Yikes! Philosophers Notwithstanding, Kansas School Board Redefines Science By DENNIS OVERBYE Published: November 15, 2005 Once it was the left who wanted to redefine science. In the early 1990's, writers like the Czech playwright and former president Vaclav Havel and the French philosopher Bruno Latour proclaimed "the end of objectivity." The laws of science were constructed rather than discovered, some academics said; science was just another way of looking at the world, a servant of corporate and military interests. Everybody had a claim on truth. The right defended the traditional notion of science back then. Now it is the right that is trying to change it. On Tuesday, fueled by the popular opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the Kansas State Board of Education stepped into this fraught philosophical territory. In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself. The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: "natural explanations." But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science. The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas who has long been fighting Darwin's opponents, said, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations." Here is a link that might be useful: nytimes

Exactly what Aqua Eyes and Jim say. I've had 3 Belinda's Dream roses. One grew in a large pot in full sun on its own roots and produced a ton of wonderful blooms for about three years and then slowly died. Another currently grows on Fortuniana in a not so great location and gets some BS, has grown very tall and produces much larger, albeit much less blooms yet it keeps on trucking. The third grew on its own roots in the ground and failed miserably. I have recently just purchased another one to grow in a pot again as that was the way it provided the most blooms. I'll be keeping my grafted one and wishing it was in a better location, but I wont risk moving it as Fortuniana doesn't like being moved. I'm betting it will also get better and better with age as it has thus far. So many variables, many different results. All the same plant. Another Earthkind rose that I grow (right next to my BD) is Duchess De Brabant. Does she get BS? Yes. Does she get PM? Yes, but does she shake it off and bloom continually? YES! Another one I grow is Knockout (is KO still considered and Earthkind?) I grow both pink and red double. Do they get BS? Perhaps not, but they get all sorts of other stuff that makes them unattractive certain times of the year. They do however bloom and keep growing. Currently both are ridiculously happy and on their 3rd year in pots and are producing some of the best flowers (for KO) I've seen so far. I recently purchased SPICE rose as I've still been impressed with the designated Earthkind roses. I do not expect them to NEVER get BS, I do however expect them to brush it off and continue to grow and bloom. I only wish more varieties could be designated to the program. For example, my most disease resistant and best performing rose is Livin' Easy. It has out performed every single rose in my garden (over 150 varieties) and is not a designated EK, even thought it out performs all my other Earth Kind roses. Mine is grafted on Fortuniana and is spectacular in mid summer. Here she was last July. She's about 5 feet tall.