The science on pesticides generally is very robust. The difference between a lot of chemicals on the market is that with pesticides there is a very detailed data set that helps regulators make very informed decisions. The science on neonics, the weight of evidence of all the science out there, is very clear with these products in terms of a lethal or sublethal or chronic effect; it is not a route of exposure of concern.
On the particular issue of dust being released during planting, we've acknowledged that and have addressed it. I think moving forward, that is not going to be an issue for pollinators.
From our industry's perspective, in order to invest in new technologies, it can be upwards of $250 million and 10 years' worth of commitment to bring in a new active ingredient to market. In terms of the importance of having predictable science-based regulations, we can't emphasize that enough. That investment depends on that predictability and that science-based nature.