Sure.
I'll answer your last question first. Is there a method that could actually deliver the intent of the bill? I'm an economist. Whoever pays me can get advice out of me, and sometimes that means that you will get multiple bits of advice on what the market effect will be. There's no definitive right answer that will come out of the analysis. It will simply give you more information. It's not going to be that it will be perfect or it won't be perfect. You will get a grey zone, which means you're back to judgment again. It doesn't give you a conclusive answer.
I think one of the points that has come out implicitly in what we've all talked about is that there's a diversity of interests around the agrifood industry. There are some industries that can't tolerate much at all and there are some that can tolerate high degrees of commingling. It all depends on the market, the purpose of the technology, and the end products. So one size is very unlikely to fit all.
In those circumstances, where one size doesn't fit all but you do need something that is essentially quality assured, the usual model is to move towards standards, try to find some way—much as the organic industry has done through their organic standard—of certifying the quality and structure within the system, within the tolerances that are allowable in the area.
We've gone through multiple iterations of this debate in Canada. Over the last 10 or 15 years, we've had federal initiatives like RIONAP, the responsible introduction of new agricultural products, but essentially everybody's talking about how we create a quality assured supply chain.
There is a lot of literature; there are many methods. The government is a critical part of doing that, but it's not something that's top down. It has to be both ways, because each industry and each application of the technology will be somewhat different and will have different interests. A simple 42-word assertion--“Let's just make sure the market is comfortable”--doesn't work that well.