You're a farmer. You obviously know the issues, and that's a very good point.
With Roundup Ready wheat, you had two Roundup Ready crops in rotation in Canadian farms, and so when you're planting Roundup Ready canola--or you're not--those volunteers are everywhere. So even a farmer not growing LibertyLink canola has Roundup Ready volunteers, and all of a sudden they start putting Roundup Ready wheat in their seed drills, and they can't control the Roundup Ready canola volunteers in their Roundup Ready wheat, and the system doesn't work anymore.
For farmers, it was a no-brainer. You say there's misinformation and a lot of emotion. In my research for the published paper there were almost 2,000 farmers in that specific survey. Through the law of averages, you build a big data set and you start to get those salient facts in what people were thinking. Really there were ecological issues, as you're saying, combined with market harm. It just made no sense for Canadian farmers.
With respect to biotechnology, I agree with my friends here on the idea that it's on a case-by-case basis. There are some crops that aren't going to make sense in Canadian farm rotations, and in the marketplace there are other crops that might make sense. I'm not here to present the notion that all biotechnology is bad. I think we need to evaluate these technologies based on their merits as individual crops.
With respect to organic farmers and your question about process, we're on Parliament Hill right now. Democracy doesn't just happen. The product of democracy does not just exist intrinsically. There's a process required to get there. I think that both of these, the process and the product, are very important. If you abandon the process, the product doesn't make any sense. We need to--