This paper assesses the potential of transgenic trees to generate substantial financial returns in an environmental where there are substantial investment costs in research and development, deregulation and deployment. The formidable obstacles and in addition to the usual research and development costs, include the costs of obtaining requisite intellectual property rights. Also, there are substantial costs to achieve deregulation, and some evidence of deregulatory slowdown in the U.S., and cost of product deployment. The product deployment costs are likely to be higher than for other products, e.g., traditionally improved seedlings, due to substantial and widespread opposition (stigma) to GE in general and transgenic trees particular. As with all trees, the payoff time (harvest) is delayed longer than most other investments and the financial returns adversely affected by the delay. Additionally, the financial costs and benefits may vary substantially by country and region. Some evidence suggests that deregulation costs may vary substantially by country. Additionally, the perceived “stigma” costs are likely to vary greatly among regions thereby providing better opportunities in some markets than others. If deployment depends upon the financial and economic returns, one might expect widespread adoption among some countries, e.g., China and Brazil, where the net benefits are large, and little or no adoption among countries where the net benefits are small, e.g., countries of the EU. However, at this time the final success of GE trees remains to be witnessed. Although some firms have withdrawn entirely from the area of tree GE research, other firms continue to invest substantial sums in tree GE development presumably anticipating eventual payoffs. It remains to be determined whether the technology ultimately is broadly accepted, accepted only regionally or fails globally.
Beata Szymczyk, Witold Szczurek, Sylwester Świątkiewicz, Krzysztof Kwiatek, Zbigniew Sieradzki, Małgorzata Mazur, Dariusz Bednarek and Michał Reichert
blood lymphocyte subpopulations. J Anim Feed Sci 2015, 24, 134–143.
6. El-Shamei Z.S., Gab-Alla A.A., Shatta A.A., Moussa E.A. Rayan A.M.: Histopathological changes in some organs of male rats fed on genetically modified corn (Ajeeb YG). J Am Sci 2012, 8, 684–696.
7. Flachowsky G., Chesson A., Aulrich K.: Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants. Arch Anim Nutr 2005, 59, 1, 1–40.
8. Halle I., Aulrich K., Flachowsky G.: Four generations of feeding of GMO-corn to breeder quail. (Fütterung von gentechnisch verändertem Mais an
Michał Reichert, Wojciech Kozaczyński, Teresa Agnieszka Karpińska, Łukasz Bocian, Agnieszka Jasik, Anna Kycko, Małgorzata Świątkiewicz, Sylwester Świątkiewicz, Iwona Furgał-Dierżuk, Anna Arczewska-Włosek, Juliusz Strzetelski and Krzysztof Kwiatek
plants. Environ Int 2011, 37 , 734-742.
4. EFSA 2008. Report of the EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. Sci Direct, 46, S2-S70.
5. Flachowsky G., Aulrich K., Böhme H., Halle I.: Studies on feed from genetically modified plants (GMP) - contributions to nutritional and safety assessment. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2007, 133 , 2-30.
6. He X.Y., Tang M.Z., Luo Y.B., Li X., Cao S.Sh., Yu J.J., Delaney B
Małgorzata Świątkiewicz, Dariusz Bednarek, Jan Markowski, Ewa Hanczakowska and Krzysztof Kwiate
proliferation in in vitro cultures. Ann Anim Sci 2011, 11 , 497 - 505.
8. James C.: Global status of commercicalized biotech/GM crops: 2011. ISAAA Brief 2011 no. 43. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
9. Khumnirdpetch V., Intarachote U., Treemanee S., Tragoonroong S., Thummabood S.: Detection of GMOs in the broilers that utilized genetically modified soybean meals as a feed ingredient. Plant and Animal Genome, IX Conf., 2001, San Diego, USA, Abstr. 585.
10. Kilic A., Akay M.T.: A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in