Thank you for those answers.
As I understand it, the way statutory declarations would work is basically you declare that the product is what you claim it to be. Is that correct?
I was a dairy producer, and if I put penicillin into a tank or truckload of milk—and I'm just one shipper in that truckload—and they take a sample at my farm and I'm the one found out to have jeopardized that truckload of milk, it's going to cost me $100,000, or $60,000, or whatever the truckload costs. And they can trace it right back to you. We're dealing with a different product, but I can't see why the same thing can't be done.
On the question of bonding, both Vicki and Conrad mentioned this point. Also in my mind, the cost of security is a public good, which farmers shouldn't have to pay for. In any event, can you outline what you propose in terms of bonding? We want to ensure that there's not an additional burden of cost that ought not be there. So outline your point on bonding, and what's the risk on the other side from how you folks see it?