Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your presentations today. I think they've been good. They've been balanced. We have opposing opinions, which is good too.
For my part, I have a real concern about the bill Mr. Atamanenko has put forward in the House. I see science-based decisions as being somewhat objective in nature and economic analyses as being somewhat subjective in nature. This is where the difficulty lies. When you look at a market for a new product, it's very hard to evaluate an unrealized market. If you have a product that's not being sold into a market, how can you possibly project accurately, objectively, what that market would be? You could, with a little more objectivity, perhaps, evaluate what the negative impact might be based on markets you already have and could lose. That's a very biased system. If you're going to look at the negative implications objectively and at the positive market implications subjectively, it's already an unlevel playing field. I have a real issue with that.
I also think there is a feedback system. Farmers and farm groups have a role in the system that exists right now. Research and development cost money and take time and effort. Farmers and farm groups know where they can sell their products and whether they want to carry those products. It would be highly disadvantageous for a company to develop a product that nobody is going to buy. They might have the absolute best seed possible that offers the highest yield and the lowest loss possible. But if no one buys that product to grow it, there's no sense in developing it and bringing it through to marketability status. I actually think that farmers and farm groups have input into the system right now, and it is an economic input. They are able to know whether something benefits them or does not benefit them.
One of my concerns is that I think this very debate we're having today has had an impact on the market. Oftentimes, as legislators, we think that once a bill has been passed it will have an impact, but that while we're in the midst of debating it, surely there's no impact. My feeling is that, no, there is a very real impact just from being on the table. What I mean is that it sows uncertainty about the research and development part of agriculture.
I want to ask Mr. Keller if he might be able to comment on that. You're representing interests, and you also have connections with other arms of research and development as they impact technology. Could you give us your opinion as to whether this bill, even though it has not passed yet, is having a positive impact, a negative impact, or zero impact on research and development? What would be your read on that?