There's a three-level discussion going on here. There are state-to-state discussions, there are industry discussions, and then there's the interface between the two. Generally, firms only do the interface discussion when there's a specific product they need to get through some system. Their job isn't to make the regulations; their job is to comply with the regulations.
I think what you're seeing is that within a lot of these industrial supply chains, they are global. The quality of the products are defined globally, the technologies are owned globally, and the firms that are doing all the things between basic ideas and your dinner table are global enterprises. So they're developing their own standards, which in some cases far exceed the standards of any national government they're trading within.
Sometimes you're seeing a supply push standard where a commodity group or a firm that owns the technology will say, “We're going to 99.9% purity standards and that's it”, even though they may only be required to go to 95% by the regulatory regimes.
A lot of our seeds business is up there; it far exceeds the minimum standards. Similarly, downstream you're getting the food processors saying “zero tolerance” or “tolerance in these types of ways”. For example, they'll tolerate GM traits in industrial food ingredients, which don't make up a significant percentage of the food product and hence don't have to be labelled in most jurisdictions.
It's not like it's all or nothing. It's whatever is appropriate to the system, which is really just another illustration of the complexity of this world. It's not about commodities any more. It's not about a single product moving between two countries where there's no specific interest in the supply chain. That's why there aren't single rules that say we should just assess the market opportunity, because it isn't a single market. Most of these are going to be highly differentiated, so it's very difficult to know whether there's money in it or not.