Scientists Discover Bt Toxins Found In Monsanto Crops Damage Red Blood Cells

red blood cells

Studies are showing that Bt toxins found in Monsanto crops are harmful to mammalian blood by damaging red blood cells and more. RBC’s are responsible for delivering oxygen to the body tissues through blood flow.

Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) is a bacterium commonly used as a biological pesticide. It is a microorganism that produces toxic chemicals. It occurs naturally in the environment, and is usually isolated from soil, insects and plant surfaces. Prior to this study, Bt was thought to be toxic only to insects,  but recent studies are proving otherwise.

Dr. Mezzomo and his team of Scientists from the Department of Genetics and Morphology and the Institute of Biological Sciences, at University of Brasilia recently published a study that involved Bacillus thuringensis (Bt toxin) and its effects on mammalian blood. According to the study, the “Cry” toxins that are found in Monsanto’s GMO crops like corn and soy, are much more toxic to mammals than previously thought. The study was published in the Journal of Hematology and Thromboembolic Diseases(1).

We do not support animal testing, and think it is unnecessary. It should really be a no brainer that GMO crops cause significant damage to human health. Studies that don’t require animal testing have already proven the dangers of GMO consumption. This study unfortunately required the use of Swiss Albino Mice if Bt was to be properly examined. At the same time, most of us know that the existence of GMOs is completely unnecessary.

Advances in genetic engineering promise the expression of multiple Cry toxins in Bt-plants, known as gene pyramidingTherefore, studies on non-target species are requirements of international protocols to verify the adverse effects of these toxins, ensuring human and environmental biosafety.

Due to its growing use in agricultural activities, Bt presence hasalready been detected in different environmental compartments such as soil and water. Consequently, the bioavailability of Cry proteins has increased, and for biosafety reasons their adverse effects might be studied, mainly for non-target organisms. Studies are therefore needed to evaluate Bt toxicity to non-target organisms;  the persistence of Bt toxin and its stability in aquatic environments; and the risks to humans and animals exposed to potentially toxic levels of Bt through their diet.(1)

Thus, we aimed to evaluate, in Swiss albino mice, the hematotoxicity and genotoxicity of four Bt spore-crystals…

Scientists tested levels ranging from 27 mg to 270 mg over a seven day period, it was remarkably evident that the Cry toxins were hemotoxic, even at the lowest doses administered. Hemotoxins destroy red blood cells, disrupt blood clotting and cause organ degeneration and tissue damage.

The number of RBC’s, (red blood cells) as well as their size, were significantly reduced, and so were the levels of hemoglobin for oxygen to attach to. Every factor regarding RBC’s indicated some level of damage for all levels of toxin administered and across all cry proteins. The tests clearly demonstrated that Cry proteins resulting from the Bt toxin were cytotoxic (quality of being toxic to cells) to bone marrow cells. Studies contiually show that these proteins kill blood cells bytargeting the cell membranes of RBC’s.

Cry1Ab (the protein produced in common Bt corn and soy) induced microcytic hypochromic anemia in mice, even at the lowest tested dose of 27 mg/Kg, and this toxin has been detected in blood of non-pregnant women, pregnant women and their fetuses in Canada, supposedly exposed through diet [34]. These data, as well as increased bioavailability of  these MCA in the environment, reinforce the need for more research, especially given that little is known about spore crystals’ adverse effects on non-target species (1)

Dr. Mezzomo and his team are not the only group of scientists to discover the harmful effects of Bt toxins. Professor Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario has also studied it (2)(3)(4). He concluded that that there is sufficient evidence  that the Bt toxin will impact directly on human health through damaging the ileum, which is the final section of the small intestine that is responsible for the absorption of vitamin B12. He also points out that the Bt cry toxin gene has not been proven to be the same as the natural bacterial gene. As mentioned in the first paragraph, it occurs naturally in the environment, usually isolated from soil, insects and plant surfaces.

It seems that everyday brings forth new information regarding GMO’s. We have so much evidence that points to just how harmful these foods are, yet they continue to be mass produced and the corporations that develop them are constantly protected. The truth still remains, you still have a choice as to what you put into your body. I encourage everybody reading this to further their research, most ‘industries’ we have on the planet today really aren’t necessary, we are just made to believe that they are.

Sources: (1)

More From 'Awareness'

CE provides a space for free thinkers to explore and discuss new, alternative information and ideas. The goal? Question everything, think differently, spread love and live a joy filled life.

169 comments on “Scientists Discover Bt Toxins Found In Monsanto Crops Damage Red Blood Cells

  1. Pingback: In with root intensification — out with gmo | futopiapress

  2. Pingback: The use of GMOs in our food supply – a look at the debate | Kristina Puga

  3. Pingback: GMO, What To Know | Aurora Importing and Distributing

  4. Pingback: Health Freedom Alliance » Monsanto Buys Weather Climate Corporation For 1 Billion

  5. Randy

    The author should really do more research as the article he was writing about was withdrawn from public databases at the request of the authors. This suggests that the research was flawed.

    • Actually, it was withdrawn from Food and Chemical Toxicology. This publication must have very low standards to begin with since they are the publishers of the infamous 2012 Seralini study (I have even seen them link to Natural News on their home page though I have to wonder if it was some automated link generation because I have trouble believing that even they’d be that stupid –see ).

      In any event, since it was re-published afterward in some fake journal (Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases, to be precise), I am guessing that the withdrawal was at the request of the editors at Food and Chemical Toxicology rather than at the request of the authors of the article. It’s a dodgy paper nevertheless.

      • Seralini has refused to withdraw his anti GMO publication linking them to cancer :)

      • Martin

        Agent Provocateur

    • Martin

      Maybe you should some research, you sceptic. Maybe the author’s have been manipulated (threatened in some way). There could be other reasons too.

      • It is more likely that the editors simply retracted an unusually crappy paper. Perhaps they don’t want to seem like total fools and have their impact factor dragged through the mud.

  6. Pingback: Will WA be fooled like CA on GMO vote - Page 6 - City-Data Forum

  7. Pingback: Former Canadian Government Genetic Scientist Speaks Out Against GMOs

  8. Pingback: Former Canadian Government Genetic Scientist Speaks Out Against GMOs | peoples trust toronto

  9. Pingback: Former Canadian Government Genetic Scientist Speaks Out Against GMOs | Collective-Evolution

  10. Pingback: Collective-Evolution

  11. Pingback: 遺伝子組み換え食品に注意。 | 無痛療法師の絶対的治療効果とエビデンス

  12. Pingback: 6 Discovered Toxins Sites

  13. Pingback: ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ Was Just Extended By US Congress | Collective-Evolution

  14. Pingback: Groundbreaking Study Links Monsanto’s Glyphosate To Cancer | The Liberty Beacon

  15. Pingback: The OMG of GMO: TESTING » Fauna Likes Flora

  16. Pingback: South Korea Joins Japan: Rejects Imports Of U.S. Wheat Polluted With GMOs | Collective-Evolution

  17. Pingback: EPA Raises Allowable Concentrations of Monsanto’s Glyphosate On Food Crops | Collective-Evolution

  18. Pingback: Are GMOs Changing your DNA? The Shocking Truth... | Residual Majors

  19. mbio

    When your mind is already made up ” It should really be a no brainer that GMO crops cause significant damage to human health.” then of course there is no reason to conduct research with or without animal models. Or to paraphrase Jonathan Swift, There is no reason to use animals in research when there are so many poor minority children. Hey get real those are the people that research with or without animals are sworn to protect because the rich people can protect themselves.


  20. Jenelle

    I find it really interesting that all these eminent scientists from around the world find problems with GMO’S. All the independent scientific evidence shows at least the possibility of health problems. Yet, they are suddenly losing their jobs (often after years of tenure); peer review magazines are suddenly withdrawing the articles; their families are being threatened. Then the people who call for proper testing (that was never done by the companies such as Monsanto) are ridiculed and belittled. Usually, with very few exceptions, those doing the ridiculing have ties to one of the big chemical companies (usually Monsanto). There are American Supreme Court judges, FDA department heads etc, all with Monsanto ties. The more research I do, the worse the picture is. Stop destroying our world and lying about your reasons. Biotechnology has the potential to be an amazing tool in bettering the lives of so many. Instead, it is just another unethical money making ploy. So disheartened.

  21. Pedro

    Can I just point out that Bt Toxin is a pesticide used by organic farmers, or would that just blow your hippy noodles? ;)

    • It gets better. As I and others have pointed out, the paper in question is not testing the toxins but, rather, whole bacterial spores containing the toxins. You don’t find that in any transgenic plant but that is exactly what is often used by organic farmers.

      Note, however, that this in no way suggests that what organic farmers use is dangerous as the doses mentioned in this paper are unrealistic.

        • The facts?

          A couple problems.

          One is that none of the information in that link refutes what I have pointed out. The study does not use proper controls, it is not testing the right thing if you wish to draw conclusions about delta endotoxins expressed in transgenic crops and the doses used are unrealistic for any sort of real life exposure. Nothing in the page you linked to has anything whatsoever to do with the specifics of the study.

          And if you, nevertheless, wish to look at that page, the other problem is that it hardly represents the facts.

          «The bt bacteria, commercially available for organic farming is a preparation of weakened or most often dead bacteria, which is sprayed only in the case of high insect infestation and only onto the affected area.»

          Weakened, how? When you get one of these formulations, it’s hard to know what you are going to get (the process details are going to be proprietary) but it’s either going to be BT toxin or BT spores. BT spores are non vegetative bacteria but that doesn’t mean they are dead or weakened.

          «The bacterium inside the spray contains the pro-form of the so called bt toxin. This is not an active component, it needs to be tailored (cut to size) to produce the active bt toxin, which is effective as a pesticide.»

          Funny. When you use it in organic crops it’s a “so called” toxin. Isn’t that a little bit disingenuous? No bias here! By the way, this is exactly how the transgenic versions of these proteins operate. The information later in the article saying otherwise is false.

          «The actual bacterium, which is not eaten by any insects…»

          Says who? You are wrong. Have you ever seen a caterpillar eat? If the preparation has spores and the spores are on the plant leaf, of course they will eat them.

          «… degrades in the light/sun/rain pretty fast (less than a day). The chances of pests developing resistance to it are very low indeed, since all the pests which are exposed to the toxin are affected by it.»

          I actually do not disagree that much. The degradation is from UV (which is why the spores can last in soil for months) so anything on the top of leaves should quickly disappear. The resistance issue is lessened as long as there are enough insects unaffected due to not having been exposed to the toxins in the first place so as to genetically overwhelm those which are less affected due to intrinsic resistance. It is not the case that the toxins in insecticidal preparations are intrinsically any less likely to produce resistant pests than those produced in transgenic crops. It is the case that usage patterns of these BT based bacterial insecticides do not favor the development of resistance whereas vast fields of uniformly BT traited crops can easily favor this over time.

          This is why farmers are encouraged (required?) to plant refuges with every BT traited crop out there. However, it is a very real problem that sometimes farmers do not follow this practice. This is why seed companies, in recent years, have been offering refuge-in-the-bag BT traited seed. This means that a small percentage of seeds in the bag do not contain the BT trait and thus serve as a refuge without requiring the farmer to do anything special to create the refuge planting.

          «Bt bacteria has no harmful effect on the environment as far as we know.»

          I’ll be the last to suggest otherwise. See for yourself. This might be a typical profile:

          «As far as human safety is concerned, the bacterium is only ever present on the surface of the plant and, if there were any remaining bacteria on the crop when it is prepared for consumption, it can be easily washed off.»

          As far as human safety is concerned, there’s little to worry about because these toxins have an excellent safety profile in and of themselves. Most of the time, it is true that when applied as an insecticide these preparations are externally applied.

          Most of the time, however, is not all of the time. As I have pointed out elsewhere, one recommendation for dealing with squash vine borer involves injecting BT into the vine and this practice will not disqualify this produce from organic certification. You absolutely will not wash this off and how well UV degradation works inside the plant is anyone’s guess (and my guess is that it probably does not work very well at all).

          «The gene of one, or several of the active, trimmed toxin is transferred to the GM plant and will be synthesized in every single cell of the transgenic plant and the active toxin is being expressed by every cell, all the time. Therefore, the ACTIVE TOXIN IS IN EVERY PLANT CELL AND TISSUE, ALL THE TIME and cannot be washed off.»

          The first part of that is false. Contrary to the implication here, the constructs used still need to be partially degraded in the insect gut. As I pointed out earlier, they are still, as the article calls them, a “pro-form” of the toxins. The second part of that is partly true. Actually, it is my understanding that there are some BT trait constructs which are driven by promoters which will drive differential expression so that the protein is not produced in all tissues. However, I believe the characterization is probably correct for most of the stuff out there. Again, it is not the “ACTIVE TOXIN”, though. It is a precursor to a toxin (which only becomes activated in the guts of some insects).

          «… since they are lectins, they all are very likely to bind to the wall of the mammalian/human gut.»

          Ah, this must be Puztai’s contribution since he’s a lectin guy, right? Again, look at how unrealistically high the exposure scenarios are in some of the studies mentioned in that profile I linked to and yet they didn’t seem to find any problems. I call BS.

          • you might be interested in reading this. Some pretty good points regarding gmos and the bt toxin as well.

          • Arjun Walia writes:
            « you might be interested in reading this. Some pretty good points regarding gmos and the bt toxin as well.»

            Yes, I am familiar with that. There are some serious methodological issues with that and I’m not so sure the results even make sense except as a cross reaction in a setting for which the test in use was never validated.


            (Note that, in the comment section, there is even one commenter there who happens to work at the company producing the test and they confirm that the test was only validated for plant materials and was never validated serum).

    • Miles Auwe

      I’m curious what the equivalent amount would be to a human, as in 27 mg weighing say 340 grams, or 3/4 pound. To a 75 Kg, or 165, human that would be between 6.3 to 63 grams of undiluted pesticide, or 1/4 to 2+1/4 oz, per day. That is a bit extreme even in it’s lowest dose.
      There are also several other “organic” pesticides in use that are as or more harmful than their synthetic counterparts, Controversial natural pesticides include rotenone, copper, nicotine sulfate, and pyrethrums. Wikipedia is a good place to learn about this, search “Green Pesticides Wiki”.
      Remember, hemlock is organic, so is arsenic.

    • Tami Mulder

      Yes, used by organic farmers and gardeners like myself. BIG difference is this: organic farmers DUST the BT on their crops then it’s WASHED off. GMO crops, it’s directly in the plant makeup, you cannot get rid of it by washing it off.

      • Hey Tami, does it wash off when applied by injection of BT spores (these are spores of potentially infectious microorganisms) directly into squash vines? This is a suggested means of controlling squash borer and it will not cause one to lose organic certification. Interestingly enough, this might be relevant to this, so called, study, since it studied whole spore preparations rather than preparations of any one toxin.

    • You should read the article next time, along with a few other related ones. That is unless you feel in danger of straining it with facts somehow.

      The organic spray-on is used in much lower concentrations, and represents only one strain; the naturally occurring one that crystallizes in the gut of the target pest (and several other insects as well). The strains found in human fetal blood and pregnant women were crystallized already, and this research shows that some of those strains can crystallize at a more neutral pH in tap water. It’s stipulated that many of the grains we eat have proteins in them that open up gap junctions and allow macro-molecules like Cry-proteins (BT-poison) directly into the bloodstream.

  22. I have a solution. A product technology to add the nutrition back into your food, turning any meal you consume, into a nutricious one. It’s called Nutriverus, and that is just one of the amazing product technologies available through Mannatech, Inc. Check out their Give For Real program at

  23. Pingback: Riscos dos Transgênicos II – Saúde Pública | Estância Orgânica

Leave a Reply

Nikola Tesla Secret
Subscribe to CE Magazine Monthly For Exclusive Content!

We Recommend