In ten minutes, I'm trying to cover a whole host of topics here. I apologize.
What I'm saying is we're prepared to pay competitive prices for grains. That's been an argument made in the press, for example, that we don't want to pay the right price for grain. That's not right. We will pay a competitive price for grain. Our fear is that government policies will distort the marketplace for grains in order to encourage the use of things like alcohol, and then we're in the situation of having to pay more for grain as a result of that government money entering into the marketplace and distorting it. What we're saying is let's be careful in this thing. There's a public good; we understand that from the fuel situation. What we're saying is be careful we don't distort it the same way.
There are huge concerns right now in the United States, in the midwest, about the amount of corn—which is essentially the livestock feed basis for most of the livestock production in North America—by their fuel policy. When we were down there this year, in Minnesota and Iowa and South Dakota and Nebraska—It's a major discussion point among all the livestock groups right now about the sheer volume of corn that's going to go into the fuel industry. It's massive, and it's going to have a huge impact all the way through the whole price-setting system for various livestock products—eggs, chicken, beef, to some extent, but definitely on pork. Somehow we're saying back to the processing industry that we need to ratchet up the price in the supermarkets because somehow somebody's got to pay for this increased cost of feeding these animals.