To your point, there is current science and there is ample current science in many disciplines. Science evolves. There's no question about that, but today, in the context of this policy that we're talking about, we're talking about current science, internationally recognized principles, internationally recognized methods. There's no analytical method that I would know of that competent statisticians could not evaluate in terms of its reliability, its integrity, and the predictability of the results.
The coefficients of variation are the standard deviations, meaning that the uncertainty in any analytical method can be established. The grains council has submitted to the federal government that we need to take those quantifiable uncertainties from analytical methods into account in layering on top of the 0.2%.
For example, we further stated that the numbers that have been put out here are inconsistent with the usual domestic grain trade. The grain-grading standards that we have under the Canada Grain Act and regulations are questionably achievable, and under Canada's federal regulatory policy, the regulated parties have to have the means to achieve.... If a country or a customer in a country says they don't want it, and they are prepared to pay the costs of ensuring that it isn't there, then commerce can proceed. If the customer says he doesn't want it and it's not practically achievable, then responsible vendors say, “I'm sorry, I can't sell to you”.
It's that simple.