Have you heard of the genetically modified Bt toxin implemented into Monsanto’s GMO Bt crops such as corn and soy as a biopesticide? Maybe you have, but did you know that this registered insecticide is showing up in people around the world? A Canadian Hospital tested for Bt toxins in the blood serum of pregnant women and their unborn babies by sending their umbilical cord blood to a lab. Their findings were more than troubling.
In 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered the first Bt plant-incorporated protectants for use in the United States. Since then, the EPA has registered 11 Bt plant-incorporated protectants, although 5 of these registrations are no longer active.
In October 2001, the EPA extended the registration of Bt corn for an additional 7 years and the registration of Bt cotton for an additional 5 years, while leaving the registration decision for Bt potato unchanged.
The Study’s Findings
Bt toxins were found in 93% of the women tested and 80% of their unborn babies at the Sherbrooke Hospital in Canada. This study is a bit older, but remarkably, no follow-up study or action has been taken against Monsanto for so obviously contaminating women and their unborn babies with a known carcinogen. We know fetuses are very vulnerable as they grow into full-grown babies – so why would any mother knowingly want to expose their babies to Bt toxins? They don’t, of course – the problem is that most mothers don’t realize it is a danger.
Add on to this the fact that the herbicide chemical glyphosate – found in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Round Up – is being found in people’s blood, urine, and breast milk around the nation. Something needs to change.
Here’s why Bt toxins (CryAb1) don’t belong in a mother’s body or the babies blood:
- As one study found, “Apoptotic effects of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac by means of caspase 3/7 activities were studied; no effects on HEK293 cells were visible. We can therefore confirm that Cry1Ab can induce cytotoxic effects via a necrotic mechanism in these conditions at 100 ppm.” 
- Yet another study proved that Bt toxins were especially harmful since they have been engineered to be produced by and present throughout the inside of every cell and intercellular space of the plants themselves. This means the lateral transfer of genetic material is not only possible, but likely.“..advances in genetic engineering promise the expression of multiple Cry toxins in Bt-plants, known as gene pyramiding. Therefore, studies on non-target species are requirements of international protocols to verify the adverse effects of these toxins, ensuring human and environmental biosafety.”
- As Natural Society Previously reported, Bt toxins can kill human embryo cells.“The Roundup tested alone from 1 to 20 000 ppm is necrotic and apoptotic from 50 ppm, far below agricultural dilutions (50% lethal concentration 57.5 ppm). The only measured significant combined effect was that Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac reduced caspases 3/7 activations induced by Roundup; this could delay the activation of apoptosis. There was the same tendency for the other markers. In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants” 
Why the EPA ever allowed Bt toxin for human consumption is a big question. But an even bigger one is why we haven’t banned Bt toxic GM crops upon discovering that it is showing up in human embryo cord blood.
3 thoughts on “Monsanto’s GMO Bt Toxins Found in 93% of Pregnant Women”
So glyphosate is in Senomyx’s Fetal Flavor Enhancers”.
The Sherbrooke study is a good example of bad science.
From the published paper: “A standard curve was prepared by successive dilutions (0.1–10 ng/ml) of purified Cry1Ab protein (Fitzgerald Industries International, North Acton,MA, USA) in PBST buffer.”
From Table 1 of the paper: ” Cry1Ab Mean ± SD (ng/ml) Pregnant women 0.19 ± 0.30 Non-pregnant women 0.13 ± 0.37″
1) The standard curve should be prepared in a solution with similar properties as the sample, i.e. if the samples are serum than the standard curve should be made in spiked serum samples.
2) The detected means are at the very bottom of the range of the standard curve. For accurate measurements, values should fall in the middle of the standard curve. The people doing the work should have used a lower dilution or made a different standard curve.
3) The standard deviations are larger than the means themselves, and in both cases extend the error range below zero! This basically means that the researchers didn’t detect anything reliably.
4) The ELISA kit used to detect Cry1Ab was designed for use with plant samples, not human serum. For anyone who knows anything about matrix effects of samples, this is a huge red flag. I.e. the kit has not be validated to be accurate with human blood or serum samples.
Moral of the story, Christina Sarich didn’t read the paper and has no idea what she is talking about. And frankly, neither do the authors of the research. It should never have made it past the peer-review stage. But alas mistakes happen.
since Bt toxin detected…is that surprising ? Isn’t Bt toxin both natural, and used on organic produce as a pesticide.
just say, detecting and being a problem are two different things. Lead is likely detectable in every person, but that doesn’t make it a risk.
To often writers on these topics don’t have science or risk backgrounds, but do seem well versed in painting a picture they would like others to see.