When it comes to producer extension, I'll call it, and changing how you produce forages, or adding fertilizer--those types of things--it's a significant risk to producers if they don't understand it. One of the things where we see the gap and we're working on it is in providing the economics behind it. Does this make sense to you as a producer, and why should you consider this? These things are complex, and we need to help facilitate those decisions beyond what the research outcome is.
The second part of that is that when it comes to commercialization, we need to have a regulatory environment that also encourages it. Canada is a small country, so in terms of getting large corporations to invest, whether it's forages or others, we have to be probably even more facilitative to some extent to ensure that this comes. We've seen that on things like drug approvals, where regulatory approvals previously--and they're improving--lagged substantially compared to the products in the U.S., which were approved years before they were in Canada. That creates a cost advantage for U.S. producers, first of all. It's very discouraging in terms of investment, and we see that with the Seeds Act, which I think has been undergoing a 10-year review.
So commercialization is important, but one of the gaps we have, which as a country we have to be really nimble on...we need to have a safe food system, but we need to also be regulatory competitive, and then focused on risk management.