I think it's an absolutely reasonable idea, given that there's very little benefit to GE alfalfa. I mean, I've talked to farmers across the country. I've grown alfalfa, harvested it, and fed it since I was knee-high. We don't need GE alfalfa. It's of very limited use in the industry, so when you take a risk-benefit analysis, you've got all the risks and really very dubious benefits--very, very dubious benefits.
Now, my colleague here has some worthwhile ideas about developing biotechnologies that could actually act in the common good and be good for people, Canada, industry, and farmers. I don't want to see his work held up because there's a moratorium on alfalfa. I think that probably one of the great defences against the idea of stopping alfalfa is the cry that if we stop alfalfa, Monsanto will walk away, the funding will dry up, and we'll ruin the biotech industry.
That is not the purpose. Alfalfa is a very specific case. These things are very specific and have to be dealt with individually. I think a moratorium on alfalfa is completely reasonable and defensible. I don't think it should be an overall moratorium or hindrance to the very good types of biotechnology that are developing new medicines or new uses for plants outside of the food system.