Let me give you an example. Suppose that somebody reads a report, which isn't available from Monsanto, on why genetically modified wheat may be the way to go or on releasing this wheat. If this is really true, and it might be, you have to give people in the public information also. It can't always just be private information in terms of whether this is acceptable, right? So then to communicate, what you need to do, almost, is get an objective body from another side, which is not part of the seed companies, and so on, which push their agenda, to try to show who the gainers and losers are from this whole thing.
In the U.S., ethanol is a mess. That whole ethanol system in the U.S., in my opinion, is when you really get the farm lobbyist groups involved. In my opinion, most academics, at least, really do not support at all the ethanol program in the U.S. They make this argument: Why do you produce corn with energy and use corn again to produce energy? It's all over the map, depending on which expert you talk to, as to whether there are any benefits from ethanol. How you communicate that to the average person I have no idea. An average person might say that if corn goes up 50¢ a bushel or 60¢ a bushel because of ethanol, it has to be a bad thing for me from a food supply point of view. Furthermore, they'd argue that it has no impact on the fuels market. So why are we doing it? Obama's got himself in a real bind or a problem with these energy prices and how to deal with these tax credits now for the oil producers.
I agree with you that you have to communicate, but it's tough. If farm groups think that there's a bottom line in it for money, they don't really need the time to communicate with anybody either. It's a matter of convincing politicians to do it.