Thank you.
On your question about the Canadian government position in Bangkok, the meeting in Bangkok took place in early 2005. It was one of a series of meetings under the umbrella of the Convention on Biological Diversity. I will quote just part of the recommendation from that convention, which was actually set in the year 2000 but it gets revisited at these various meetings. It's a bit wordy, perhaps, because it's a UN recommendation. It states:
in the current absence of reliable data on genetic use restriction technologies, without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by Parties
--such as Canada as a party--
for field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing,
We're just talking about field testing at this point.
In our view as the Food Inspection Agency, which oversees field testing of plants with novel traits, products of agricultural biotechnology, that is the context in which we work. We will not allow field testing to take place until there has been appropriate scientific data to justify the testing, justify the safety of the testing, justify the appropriateness of conducting these sorts of trials, and having a full scientific understanding of the traits being tested.
Generally speaking, I think most people would agree that in order to be able to understand fully these new types of technologies, one should allow field testing as long as that's done under very safe, stringent conditions. That speaks to the sorts of programs that the agency oversees. Without that field testing, how do we know what the risks are for new traits through biotechnologies such as GURTs?
I should add, just because hypothetically one would allow field testing of GURTs to take place, that does not necessarily lead to commercialization per se. That's just one step in the life cycle of a research project, as such.
So it is our view at the Food Inspection Agency and with other colleagues in other departments in the government that this recommendation of the convention is not per se a moratorium. It's not a blanket ban on research, but it is allowing such research to take place on a case-by-case basis using the precautionary principle. From an agency perspective, that mirrors what we do already, to allow these trials only when we're satisfied that they can be conducted under safe conditions.
I hope that answers that your question.