On the human safety side, our data requirements right now with the United States are harmonized. So in terms of what is the maximum information that the U.S. EPA would look at and what is the information we would look at, that's harmonized.
On the environmental side, as I said, there remain some specific issues, and it's easier to recognize that the environmental situation differs around the world. In terms of the agricultural uses, we have moved to improve the situation with respect to sub-zones. With the United States, there is further examination of where is it. And indeed in some situations now we don't require any efficacy data on Canadian soil because there is an American zone that's close enough and you can accept American data.
For residues, there's still work to be done there.
But I do want to comment on what you said, that we want to harmonize with the United States. One of the things we're also working on now with a number of colleagues is Japan. Japan, for the first time, is establishing specific maximum residue limits. As they do that, it's having an impact on trade to Japan. We know Canadian farmers want to be able to ship product to Japan. So again, we've put some of our resources to working with the Japanese government so they understand the scientific basis of our establishing MRLs and to hopefully have them accept what we've done for MRLs.
It is the case that Japan aligns most closely with Australia, has a lot of confidence in Australia as a regulator. So in a global review, if Australia is one of the groups looking at it, you're also increasing your likelihood that Japan might accept the results. I believe Japan is actually an observer in one of the global reviews that's either under way now or scheduled for the future.
Richard has more experience with registration information and can provide a few more details.