There would be some chemicals. Certainly we can look at a number of them, which are available in the United States. I think that speaks to improving the timelines and also to improving our access to some of the generic products used there. With our integrated market, we are constantly consuming food back and forth over the border, for value-added processing, for consumption, etc. So it is certainly a concern to us that incoming products are using products we would like.
As my colleague Bob noted, it's a question of levelling that playing field. We are up against so much in terms of competing with our U.S. neighbours, and we do need to ensure we have access.
Quite frankly, it's very difficult for us to pinpoint a savings on a theoretical basis, because sometimes the savings is actually in the form of a higher yield or a better crop, etc. That's difficult for us to measure.
May I make a specific comment on the MRL issue? We referred to the global MRLs, for example, in global cooperation. I think it's important to note that there's regulatory cooperation to be done, not just in the area of synchronicity or harmonization, but also in terms of accepting and finding a science basis for those MRLs. From our perspective, 80% of Canadian grains are exported. So those MRL issues do touch us on a daily basis, and our farmers are extremely savvy in terms of which products they can use for which destination markets. They need to control that very closely.
So we need to ensure that those MRLs are not posing additional barriers to our products in the form of non-tariff barriers. We already have such an uphill climb on the tariff barriers, which we continue to strive to reduce. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, we still need to ensure that we are not faced with non-tariff barriers in the form of MRLs.