I was going to say, certainly no arguments on your last statement. That has been discussed already, that we agree there has to be a way to find the tools to accommodate some of the other needs of the industry. Ethanol is one that has been cited. There are likely going to be numerous others that are going to come at us. That's why we've put so much effort into the restructuring of our wheat classes, to accommodate that growing need for an avenue to register other products.
It's not perfect, and we'll be the first to admit it's not perfect. As David mentioned, there are producers who feel that we're still not giving them the flexibility they need. We understand that, but we also need to protect that export market, which is the premium market that has brought back some dollars for producers. We don't want to lose that advantage. So, clearly, we need to continue to do the work.
We are continuing to do the research to find better ways of evaluating grain, from the standpoint of variety identification, which is the underlying pin of our quality assurance system right now. But there are other tools, and we are looking at those as well. We've done some work on looking for tools to quickly identify falling number. With respect to chlorophyll and canola, we're looking at tools that can better evaluate chlorophyll, as opposed to crushing the canola seed and counting green seeds. We're continuing to do that.
COMPAS recommends a significant increase in dollars to the grain research lab, with some of that in mind. Now, I'm not suggesting that we necessarily feel we need the dollars that are suggested in the report, but certainly we need to continue to do the research that better evaluates the quality of grain.