That's a good question. I'll answer that initially, and then I'll ask Tom to answer.
We obviously met far more farmers than grain company executives. If the criterion were initial happiness with us, then you'd have to say the farmers loved us and the grain companies didn't. That wasn't the criterion by which we made our recommendations, nor were we particularly interested in the conflict between grain companies and farmers. We were much more interested in issues of accountability and transparency.
We live in a modern, democratic age, and it is extremely important that everyone feel it's easy to know who makes the decisions and it's easy to know the basis of their decisions. An example is our proposed modification in the act about “in farmers' interests”. The act, which Tom can speak far more eloquently on than I can, talks about that in general.
Whenever you have anything in general there's a huge risk that nothing in particular will ever happen. Why is the air polluted? Because nobody owns it. Why are public desks written on? Because no one owns them. Try to write on your mother's desk and see what happens to you. Because someone owns it, it's your mother, she's going to kill you.
We looked at what is viable, what would work, and how to protect farmers. We believe producers are far more adequately protected by making the protection very specific.
Tom, do you want to talk?