[echochartruse (OP)]

Indian Bt gene monoculture, potential time bomb
Increasing reliance on a single gene in growing a variety of crops to make them resistant to bollworms could be dangerous, warn experts. Resistance is looming large among Bt crops in India.

In March, this year (2005), an unprecedented number of hybrids of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-resistant cotton will be planted in India. A recent model simulating the development of insect resistance to Bt cotton predicts that such monoculture could lead to resistance within a few years.

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n2/full/nbt0205-158.html

Long-term ecological effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops on nontarget pests have received limited attention,
more so in diverse small holder–based cropping systems of the developing world. Field trials conducted over 10 years in northern China show that mirid bugs (Heteroptera: Miridae) have progressively increased population sizes and acquired pest status in cotton and multiple other crops, in association with a regional increase in Bt cotton adoption. More specifically, our analyses show that Bt cotton has become a source of mirid bugs and that their population increases are related to drops in insecticide use in this crop. Hence, alterations of pest management regimes in Bt cotton could be responsible for the appearance and subsequent spread of nontarget pests at an agro-landscape level.

GM cotton use increases fruit pest problem
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/14/2897626.htm

Why did this happen when there were published concerns 5 years earlier?

Were any scientific studies done because of these concerns?

Have we stopped using the BT gene in crops?

Has there been a study on humans who have eaten food from crops containing this pesticide either directly or indirectly?

Sorry for all the questions.

Is science or multi-corporte responsible?

[tommya300]

"Cradle to Grave," a peronal version of observation.
Inherent problems of objectivity, enhances focus to investigate individual processes.
Project finances granted to science dictates and itemizes objectivity.
The results and solutions are never cut and dry; there is always a trade off.
Science is limited to funding.
Where the funding support comes from, dictates how it is used.  
Foreseeing the full spectrum, the overall results, cause and affect, is usually not part of the financed objective specified.
Science can only provide the tested results and from a well rounded intellect involved can only anticipate and advice, what can branch off from that is always a guess.
Corporate profit and the sting of overhead costs can not be marginal, and in most cases there is a limit set by corporate. Greed may play a hand in all this.

[LeeE]

It is axiomatic that in any system a unique [within the scope of that system] part represents a potential point of catastrophic failure.  In the case of monocultures it doesn't matter how many individual plants exist if all of them are susceptible to the same single threat.

[Bored chemist]

"Why did this happen when there were published concerns 5 years earlier? "
Because it was still a better idea than having the cotton eaten by bugs.
What would you have don instead?
"Were any scientific studies done because of these concerns? "
Probably; I have no doubt that someone somewhere will be working on the "next generation" of this sort of thing because, as you say, it was predicted that the bugs would develop resistance to Bt.

"Have we stopped using the BT gene in crops?"
No, and once again the question is what do you think we should do instead?

"Has there been a study on humans who have eaten food from crops containing this pesticide either directly or indirectly?"
AFAIK the gene has only been introduced into cotton. Do you eat a lot of that?
Anyway, the toxin has been tested and it is not very poisonous to mammals so I'm not bothered if a little of it ends up in my food..

Incidentally, did you read this bit
""It was exactly the same situation as they are describing in China," says Miles, who also works with the Cotton Research and Development Corporation.

But, she says controls with pesticides, biological control and lucerne trap crops mean aphids are kept in check.

Miles says the Chinese problem will go away once cotton farmers start properly controlling mirids."
of  the web page you cited?