Can I add to that?
In discussions I have with our member companies or their heads of research, they identify their risks into two buckets. One is the regulatory and science risk. If we're going to spend $150 million, are we going to get something that's safe and works? They're prepared to accept that risk if they can work with a science-based system to determine safety. If they're on the right track to develop the right product for consumers and farmers, and all the rest of it, they'll live and die by that.
The other risk they identify is political risk. Can we count on science-based regulatory systems around the world, or will they be impacted by politics, polling, anecdotes, and all the rest of that? That takes them to communicating with the public about the science and the complexity of the science. It is very complex subject matter. I'm a science guy, and I find this stuff pretty overwhelming. So clearly, industry has to do a better job there in communicating risks and benefits. We hear lots about risk, but less about benefits.
Secondly, as I alluded to in my remarks, the role for governments is not to be a shield for any of these products, or promote them. But when under attack they should stand up and defend their regulatory system. We have a good system. It is protecting the public's health. It is protecting the environment.
So often hear this view and that view. The average person says “Gee, I don't know”. Who are the third-party arbitrators in Canada, and reliable and highly recognized ones around the world? They are the CFIAs of the world, the Environment Canadas of the world, and the Health Canadas of the world. They need to stand up and defend the technology. If confidence breaks down in the system, the regulatory system breaks down and you have trouble bringing products forward.
Communication is a key issue at the end of the day. I'll leave it at that.