Yes, very much so. There are many lessons. We're a lot smarter about BSE now than we were three years ago.
Three years ago, if another country had one case, they couldn't ship anything to either one of us. Canada had to act just like the United States. So when Canada got the first one, that was our reaction because that's what we thought the science was telling us. We've learned a lot about the science of BSE and what can be done, and we are taking those lessons to heart.
We've had some collateral damage in the United States too, from three animals now. We lost a multi-billion-dollar market in the Far East that still has not come back for us, in terms of exporting there. There were producers, I'm sure, in the U.S. who would like to have access to the genetics you're talking about to help them become more efficient and more competitive. So it's very much so; there is collateral damage.
I know the impact this had on the Canadian industry was just phenomenal, but the answer to that is that I think we're not there yet, even on the BSE side. We still have this rule to go. This rule should take care of much of what you're talking about in breeding cattle and so forth, like that, but we still have to work on the sheep, the alpaca, and so forth, to get fully in line with what we now believe should be the standard, which we have been pushing for in the OIE.
So ultimately that's the answer, to develop international standards that we can all live with. When it happens to us, we learn pretty fast in terms of what the science is that we didn't realize, and then we have to work on other countries together. I think we're making real headway on this.