That's an interesting question.
In the marketplace today we sense the border thickening—for different reasons. The trucks show up. Now we're going to start pulling STEC samples. They want to develop a baseline on all beef in their country. It probably should have been done before the regulation.
This is in camera, right? I might retract that one. I might play a Galen Weston and pull that one back. The cart sometimes gets ahead of the horse on occasion.
We appreciate they are now looking at developing a baseline for these new six STECs.
We wouldn't approach the border with ground beef, for example, because of the risk of delays, because it is time sensitive. We couldn't afford to lose 48 hours at the border or somewhere inside the country and deliver to the customer on time. Ground beef would not leave Canada because of those errant risks. Because of the current process where they come into Canada and go to source, they have the luxury of bringing it in and inspecting it at source.
As a matter of fact, I have to leave tonight for Washington because of the RCC program. I know Canada is really engaged in it, and I'm hoping the United States becomes more engaged in it and there's more willingness to eliminate those possible risks and delays at the border, which do affect food safety.
We've asked the AMI—the American Meat Institute, which is equivalent to the Canadian Meat Council—to put more emphasis behind it from their side for their regulators to understand the value to them of eliminating the I houses and going to the source. That would make a more unfettered, uninterrupted marketplace both ways. That's really what we need.