Yes, it's untenable really.
As I say, I can think of multiple places in the supply chain where you're using common transportation containers. For example, a truck that moves product from the farm gate to the first elevator would be used again the next day at a different farm with different product, so the whole thing has to be purged. Was it 100% completely purged or was there a little bit stuck in the corner or stuck in a conveyor belt? And then the whole system gets repeated at an elevator, where you're using conveyor belts to load up bins. Then do you completely purge the bin to take in something else? What if it was not completely purged?
So there are entry points here. I'm sure the industry is well aware of it, and certainly it's good to know your view on low-level presence.
I have had a meeting with a number of different.... Well, I meet often with farm groups and farm organizations, and there was one sector that was very concerned that if low-level presence was undertaken as a policy, that in fact would sort of condone a certain level of contamination. I want to know what your comments might be on that. I don't know if you hear what they're trying to say. They're trying to say that if low-level presence becomes a policy and it becomes sort of the modus operandi, then in a sense it somewhat condones a certain level of cross-contamination. There might not be any feedback reporting mechanisms to the issuer, like the farm gate. It could be a particular elevator saying, “This was your level of cross-contamination”, because it's all within the bounds now.
I didn't agree with them, but I would like to know what your thoughts are on that aspect.