If I could comment a little, the first thing is I don't think it's two solitudes, to begin with. There's a lot of pragmatism in this issue. I think when we saw the concerns around potential introduction of GE wheat in western Canada, what you had was farmers who loved their Roundup Ready canola saying that while they loved their Roundup Ready canola, they didn't want to see GE wheat if it were going to cause a market threat. It was very practical and pragmatic. It wasn't philosophically based at all. Many of the same farmers would adopt GE wheat if the markets went away. I see it as a very practical thing for many people and for many of the farmers involved, so I don't see it as two solitudes. That's part of the dilemma.
The other thing is there is a question about the nature of maintaining zero, given the article in the European press about the potential changes. Are Europeans allowing unauthorized traits? That's something that has to be discussed, because what is our own policy in Canada in that regard? Right now, our policy is a threshold of zero for regulated events. Will we change that? We argue that the Europeans need to change that, but if China, for example, wanted to export something to Canada that would not yet be regulated in Canada, what would our policy be? Currently, our policy is zero.
It's not simple. It's not black and white, and it's not two solitudes. I think people want choice and guarantees.