Perhaps I may just elaborate a bit. This is a new approach for PMRA, and I would be interested in any comments that members have on it. In this past year, and looking at the situation for the agriculture sector, and specifically the technology gap, and knowing that the gap exists mostly for newer products that are safer for humans at large and safer for the environment at large, the conclusion I came to, and it was supported by colleagues in the agency, was that it was worth putting our resources up front into our doing this kind of analysis. We're the ones who have asked the EPA for their reviews. We're the ones who, before our registrant has come to us, are looking at it and saying, do we think this poses any problems, or do we think it really is simply a kind of formality?
The growers we've discussed it with say they think it's a good approach, but it is a different use of public moneys. I think it's been justified, given the technology gap, given that these are newer products. These are for minor uses, which the industry typically doesn't find to its financial advantage for them to do all of the work. It also is in a collaboration with Agriculture's Pest Management Centre, where, if we need some research work, again, there's the opportunity to look at that. So it really is an investment of public funds in trying to achieve some reduction in a significant way on that technology gap. We're clear we're looking for newer products, where we can say they're safer for human health and they're safer for the environment. So from my perspective, it's a win across all sides.