I will answer the question about why these more dangerous chemicals don't have specific strategies. I wouldn't want to leave the committee with the impression that it was because they were being ignored in any way. In some ways, it's precisely because they were known to be serious risks, or known to be risks that we needed to tackle, that the tackling of them began often 30 or 40 years ago.
We have a number of individual procedures, a number of regulatory areas, which we have followed up on over the years in lead, for example, to tackle everything from gasoline to teakettles or solder in tin cans. We've gradually been working on those--