Yes. There are a few things we're doing about that.
One is that our re-evaluation program now holds regular teleconferences, and anybody who's interested can participate. A number of grower groups have people participating. That is to get a better sense early of whether, if you cannot have this product anymore, it presents you with concerns. So it's to get a better understanding of where a product is being used now, where it's a critical product, so that we can see what we can do to set up.
We are specifically looking at transition strategies. We are minimizing the number of times we're taking away one tool without having another tool available. That's one thing we're doing.
At last week's NAFTA meeting we pursued further and have agreed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to work in close collaboration, if not work share, in our future work on re-evaluation and their future work on registration review. So again, it's to recognize that what's good for new products is also good for old products. As we've said, the scientific assessment is very consistent, and one of the ways of addressing workplace pressure is to work more collaboratively with fellow regulators.
That brings with it its own pressures. Richard and a couple of other colleagues were in Bonn, Germany, to work out the scheduling details of the joint review. I need to be able to say it's worthwhile for Richard to travel to Bonn, that it isn't a tourist trip, that he's actually doing good work there.
We're also working in collaboration with the United States in developing a future timeline for re-evaluation activities.
With our Pest Management Advisory Council, we've also talked about our ability within PMRA to prioritize work. Again, the system had been to respond primarily to what registrants were bringing to us, first in, first out. Registrants are most likely driven by their bottom line, which is profit, which I don't agree should be our bottom line. I am more interested in what's happening in the Canadian environment. We're public servants. I'm interested in, as I say, giving access to newer products to all users, not just the agriculture sector.
We have talked about prioritizing and saying that if a new product is going to be a critical replacement for an old product, it will move into an earlier position in the queue and we'll address it faster.
Again, an example that I give when I'm talking with stakeholders is if it's the tenth herbicide for corn, is it as important as if it's the first for wireworm in potatoes? I think most people would agree that the latter situation, the first product to work on wireworm in potatoes, is more important for us to work on than the tenth herbicide for corn.
Again, our Pest Management Advisory Council saw merit in that and supported us going forward with it.