Basically speaking, we work with the consumers, the processors...to make sure the products are meeting their needs, and mostly from a quality perspective, looking at how they can extract the most product out of it and how they can make it turn into a product their consumer wants.
On the GMO side of it, we haven't engaged in that. It's quite politically motivated, quite politically driven, so we haven't been involved in that. It was turned down in the 1990s. We were not involved in that, other than that we had an understanding of what some of the consumers were looking for and what some of their concerns might have been at that time, so we could certainly relay that back, because we worked with those buyers.
We would do the same thing today. If we see the potential that some markets could be lost, we would relay that to people who would look at that, and they would have to weigh the costs and the benefits—so if we lose some markets in one place, what is the cost of that versus the increased cost of production in Canada because we haven't adopted that technology? But we don't engage too closely in the political process of it or in the process of whether it's right or wrong.
Basically, we just work with customers. If a product is introduced that is genetically modified, we will work with the customers around the world so they understand what the benefits are and what the risks are, so they're clear, and do an unbiased process as best we can.
