It really comes down to the outputs you're looking for. If you're looking to fund investigational research that is far removed from commercialization, so that it's not done in support of a health claim, then that money perhaps did have a higher return on investment.
However, if your outputs are a health claim, which is really what a lot of the food and beverage companies and even growers groups are ultimately looking for in their sector, because that's what gives them commercial advantage domestically and internationally, then these trials have not been designed in the appropriate way.
It's not that these trials are “bad trials”, but if the output is health claim substantiation as defined by Health Canada, the FDA, USDA, or the EU, then they don't meet the minimum threshold is what I'm getting at. It really comes down to the outputs.
I have one other quick comment on funding, which hasn't been discussed today. The SR and ED, the scientific research and experimental development tax credit has been in existence for decades, regardless of which party has held power in Ottawa. It's been in existence for quite some time, and it grows every year. For my company, it's been a phenomenal tool. It has a very low burden of proof compared to an NSERC or IRAP situation. I have a huge competitive advantage over, say, the University of Guelph in hiring scientific staff because of the SR and ED tax credit. That's a matter of public knowledge. There's no secret there.
With respect to the SR and ED program, the federal government has done a wonderful job for the private sector, whether you're a service provider like us, a research company, or a company with a research department like Syngenta, in setting up a program that allows you to subsidize salaries through this tax credit.