Yes, I, too, have seen the reports, particularly from the United States and some of the Latin American countries, about herbicide resistance in weeds. As we all know, that's not a new problem; it's just compounded by the much larger acres that are going to a single chemical platform.
The good news on the canola side is that we actually have three competing platforms. Producers who discover that they have some weeds that appear to have adopted some tolerance to one of the chemicals, be it Roundup, Liberty, or IMI, can simply, if it's an economic problem—because sometimes it just looks bad, it doesn't actually change the economics of the crop—rotate their chemicals through and kill off whatever has the resistance. So at this point we're in pretty good shape.
The lesson from that is we don't want mono-technologies adopted in any ecosystem. You want competing models. One of the lessons from canola versus those other crops you talked about is that we were able to sustain competition throughout the supply chain, from research right down to adaptation and use.
Federal labs were critical in that. They were the ones making sure that all the companies were competing on a generally competitive basis, as they were doing the research, by doing some of the foundational research that brought them into the crop and made sure that, at the end of the day, we had three technologies that complemented each other rather than caused further harm.
I think that's a really good lesson for the whole industry. We don't want to erect enough barriers to create de facto monopolies here. We do want competition, because competition creates variety and it pushes down prices. I think that's an important lesson from the canola story.