Not to disagree with that; I think you're right. I think what Dr. Smyth pointed out was there were a certain number of stakeholders. I'm simply articulating that maybe there's a big stakeholder that's been omitted. And when we start to think about how we want to do this, is that group someone we should actually have a conversation with? I simply lay that out for those who were thinking about who we should talk to, to think about who we should talk to.
On the other side, I appreciate, Dr. Smyth, your actually going through flax because that is “the example”. But it's an example from two perspectives. You've articulated the one about 0.005, which I get. There is no such thing as zero. Absolute zero doesn't exist, actually. Mathematically you can't actually get it either. So that's the science of that piece. The issue is this. Do we, then, simply take a defeatist attitude that we should not continue to try to get that way? Or do we just throw up our hands and say, well, we can be 0.1 today, 0.25 tomorrow, 0.3 tomorrow, and 0.5 after that...2%, 6%, who cares? That's an approach, right? Or do we continue to say, well, we should try to approach zero? We all understand there are extraneous materials in all of our commodities.