I'm not sure I understand the first question, but I'll do my best to respond.
Now, in terms of scientific research when it comes to GMOs specifically, there's still no hard evidence that would suggest that GMOs actually represent a risk to Canadian consumers. There have been all sorts of studies on both sides of the story suggesting otherwise. I've read some of them, and obviously you have. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be transparent about it, but this goes back to my comment about basically catching consumers by surprise. When people were told, well, some of the products you eat come from cultivations that were genetically modified, all of a sudden we were talking about Frankenfoods and all of that. We shouldn't be surprised by that reaction.
The trans fats debate is the same thing. For 30 years we put trans fats into foods that consumers were buying without telling them what it was. It represented a health risk, in the end, so of course we came up with some harsh policies to get rid of that.
So it's always in reaction, but it's often supply-driven. I think we need to make sure that there's a better connection between the two so that we don't face that situation ever again.
One thing that's at risk is the trust of consumers. That's slowly eroding. We're doing some studies at Guelph. People trust our supply chain but less and less. Mad cow, Maple Leaf, trans fats, sodium--it goes on and on. The more we go through these sorts of situations, the more consumers will start really asking some hard questions that the industry, or government, may not be able to answer.
On the Enviropig specifically, I know the folks who are involved in the project, but I'm not specifically involved with the Enviropig issue, per se.
Claude, would you like to respond to the question?