Is it a problem though; Mr. Hepworth made the point. You have a situation where we're going to have people starving. We're going to look at the world in the future and say we are going to feed them. How are we going to do that? Are we going to do it by ripping it all up and growing every acre where we think we can grow something, or are we going to look at new technologies that will make more efficient use of the land we have right now?
Those decisions have to be made. Mr. Valeriote made a comment about protecting the existing. I worked for a company called Flexicon. It grew based on an air seeder replacing the hoe drill. A lot of people out there are saying maybe we should have protected the hoe drill forever. Had we done that, we would have seen more summer fallow acres. We would have seen more harm done to the environment based on nostalgia.
When I look at crops and other technologies coming in, I look at them in the same light. In the same way, if a farmer still wants to use a hoe drill, he can use a hoe drill—that's up to him. He has those options. But you don't restrict new technologies based on fear.
That's a concern I have with a lot of associations and groups, especially in Europe, because I used to spend a lot of time in Europe. They ignored the science altogether and they raised money for their NGOs based on fear. That was wrong.
Mr. Hepworth, how do we prevent that from happening again? As we look at new technologies, how do we ensure the facts get out in such a way that people can say it's fair, reasonable, and not based on fear?