When the committee reached their agreement, the CropLife company agreed to participate and provide the data under the GROU program for free. So suddenly growers didn't have to pay to show equivalence to companies that do that.
The other thing is that that company's product was registered in Canada and the product that was deemed equivalent was that same company's product in the United States, so you had a connection. That was a good thing. If they were willing to operate and try the GROU program as a trial, but not if the OUI was going to be there at the same time, that was part of their deal, part of what they were willing to live with. They didn't want to give us the data for free, but they agreed to do that. Part of that agreement was that the OUI program would be held off to one side while the GROU program was evaluated. If you wanted to have the OUI program in place, they would walk away from the GROU program, and the horticulture producers and maybe the pulse growers don't have the money it would take to prove equivalence for all these other products for which GROU would give us the opportunity to get a price discipline put into place. It was part of the deal, part of the balance.