I think it was about a year ago that we initiated teleconference calls every four months with stakeholders interested in our re-evaluation program. The numbers of stakeholders interested in the status of re-evaluation, the timelines and what's happening, has grown. I think there are now over 40 participants on those regular calls.
One of the intents of those calls is to get the earliest notice of whether it is a problem if a use is withdrawn, and what we can do to help by way of a transition strategy.
Again, that's one of the benefits of the new act. It is clear that those transition strategies are very appropriate, that we need to work with different user groups, when it's a critical use, to be able to say as much as possible that we won't take a tool away from you until you have a replacement tool. It will not always be possible. I want to be clear, if a re-evaluation indicates there really is a strong health concern or an environmental concern, we may not be able to do that. But most of the time now, with newer pesticides, you are seeing that there's something in the pipeline that will be able to help smooth a transition strategy.