Thank you.
I do think it's very important for us to remember that this is actually more than just an issue of transparency, but an issue where the science that government is evaluating is not accessible to the public, and not even accessible to independent scientists, and, more fundamentally, that this science is not peer-reviewed science.
Peer review is part of the definition of how we create science, and this was something the Royal Society of Canada had critiqued in their report of 2001. They had a number of recommendations. Certainly one was that the entire science behind GM crop approvals be made open to peer review, that it be peer-reviewed, and that it be open to independent access.
There are different models that could be chosen to give access to those data. Certainly right now the data are classified as confidential business information. So this is a very big problem.
Regarding the design of the testing regimes itself, we don't know what those methodologies are. But the scientific community, in consultation with the government, could take a look at what testing methodologies we might want to see.