Thanks to all of you for your time.
Mr. Keller, we talk about science-based.... We've heard over and over again that it's so important, and a market-based analysis is not science-based. Yet it's my understanding that right now the industry is looking at the whole area of low-level presence thresholds. There are discussions going on, and they're actually looking at this from the market access, economic impact argument.
On the one hand, we're told that if we look at the impact of what this bill is saying, it's not science-based. On the other hand, the industry, government, and a number of ADMs are looking at it cross-departmentally, and we need to look at market access, economic impact, to see if we can get this low-level presence. It seems there's almost a double standard here. Now we're using economics, but on the other hand, we're being told we can't use it.
On my second question--and maybe, Mr. Phillips, you can answer it--would it be reasonable for us to ask the industry that develops this technology that if there is a hit to farmers as a result of contamination, for example, in the alfalfa industry, to bear full liability for market recall, and not the farmer or the taxpayer?
My third question, Mr. Gregory, concerns alfalfa. Does anyone really want it? I have not heard of anybody on the ground who wants alfalfa from conventional or organic farmers. I was in an alfalfa field this summer, and in talking to a farmer, it didn't seem that anybody wanted it. So why would we be doing this?
Mr. Keller, please.