Thank you, and thank you all for very well researched and thought out presentations. To be honest, on this bill, I don't think we've had four witnesses, two on each side, who have showed the dilemma this committee has, if we're really listening to what people are saying. I think, Mr. Phillips, you said this is an important debate, and indeed it is.
I recognize there are serious concerns, and, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Holmes, you outlined them, especially as they relate to the alfalfa industry. Where I come from, Prince Edward Island, our Japanese market is non-GMO. If the Japanese were to find that there was GMO crop growing too close to those products going to Japan, we would be out of the market. It's huge to us.
So there's no question in my mind that we have to find some way of balancing both sides off. But is this the bill to do it? The bill clearly says that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed.
I don't knuckle to the threats of the breeding companies. In my mind, those are just threats. We've seen their threats before and they've still invested in this country. But in the real world, does this bill do what we have to do? I question whether it does. I think we have to look at this debate and find a different solution.
My question to you all, really, is can you explain to me how we do that analysis of potential harm, and what would be the impact on the industries you represent? The question is to all four. I know Dr. Keller said that bioscience is critical to the future and we have to ensure that decisions are not made on a non-scientific basis. So my question is really to all four of you. How do we balance that out, and what are the risks specifically in this bill?
Peter, would you like to start first?