Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here this afternoon.
I must say, I agree with Mr. Valeriote. I know we've had private conversations about how there must be a way to allow the organics and the non-organics to function properly together in a way that they both survive, and not only that but thrive.
When you define LLP, what we're talking about is not allowing product that's unsafe to eat to be the foreign content. Let me make that clear. It has to be product that is still considered safe to eat. Therefore, if it's 0.1% or 0.2%, or whatever number you should so choose, even that foreign content is still considered safe to eat in Canada.
When I look at the long-term viability of the organic sector and the pressures that are going to be on our agriculture sector over the next 20 years, I look at the organics wondering why they're not embracing this and looking for this as a way to allow them to survive as they move forward, because there will always be pressure on them now to have zero content, which is not something they can possibly sustain going 10, 15, or 20 years out.
As Mr. Van Acker talked about, as you see more commercialization of different GMOs or different products in other crops, it becomes tougher and tougher to keep them segregated. I just find that really amazing.
One of the things we have to face in the agriculture committee, in Canada, and around the world is a growing population, and Ms. Townsend, in the previous committee meeting, talked about this.
I look at the organic sector. Mr. Van Acker, you're from Guelph, so maybe I'll take advantage of your expertise in Guelph. Have you seen any research in Guelph, or anywhere else in the world, where we've doubled or tripled the output per acre in organics?