Anyway, let me just move on to one other thing.
We had some discussion here about what it is that is causing the loss of bees. I think I heard Rod say that there are many factors at play, and I think I heard you say that as well, Clinton, meaning that it's a complicated, complex matter in terms of what is causing bee losses. Although there might be many contributing factors, it doesn't necessarily.... It's very hard to pinpoint one and say that's the factor and if only we could resolve that factor we would not suffer significant bee loss any more.
We had the Grain Farmers of Ontario here yesterday. In the public, just given the media articles that have been written, it's possible for the public to ask why the farmers just don't use it. I think you might have said that, Davis, in your comments, that we should just ban it for now until we know more.
We were asking the grain farmers, first of all, if they have a vested interest in a healthy bee population and they said that absolutely, farmers care about bees, they need bees, and they want a healthy bee population. Then I asked the question: What would the impact be on farmers if there were a ban? He said that there would be a 10% crop loss that could, on the average farm for the average crop farmer, result in a $50,000 loss to that farmer.
I want to ask for your input on that because there is a very real impact, and that's why it has to be based on sound science. Ruth Ellen was perhaps making some negative comments about sound science. But if a decision is not made on sound science, what is it being made on?
If we just start guessing at it, it has a very real impact perhaps on bee farmers, on crop farmers, on stakeholders. So we can't just guess and say we think it's this and we're going to do it. Let the penalties be what they might be. No, it has to be based on sound science.
Rod, could I ask you to comment on that, please?