Well, the problem with any moratorium is that it starts a process of saying that we will examine whether or not you have value prior to your demonstrating that there is market value. This does actually drive away investment, and it drives away focus for the industry. Generally speaking, biotechnology products are brought into a regulatory regime that, as Peter said, is a world-renowned regulatory regime that assesses the quality of safety and environmental aspects. It looks at these aspects very closely and allows people to generate something that the market wants.
We've heard this in the case of HT canola. People said we should put a moratorium on it, yet 90% of the growers are using HT canola, for an obvious reason. I think that going a priori and saying that we need to put a moratorium on things that we don't like and just stop developing them to do more studies creates a very simple question: who's going to pay for the studies, how long will they take, and who's going to control the outcome of those studies?