Sure, I can comment on that.
Three come to mind right off the bat. First is the level of confidence the public as well as their stakeholders will have in the regulatory system in Canada, which is a significant unintended consequence. If we move too quickly to take regulatory action without the scientific weight of evidence to support those decisions, our credibility is diminished significantly. Right now, we are considered a world leader in terms of pesticide regulation.
Second, and I think it's already been spoken to before, the registrants require some level of predictability in the regulatory process. Again, to take action without the weight of evidence leaves the registrants questioning whether $100 million invested in developing a pesticide and bringing it to market is a good investment when it's not an outcome, if the way decisions are going to be made at the regulatory level isn't predictable.
Third, and again this has already been spoken to, in terms of crop production and the agricultural sector, the neonicotinoids are a very heavily relied upon group of chemicals. They have replaced some of the more, I would say, nasty chemicals that were registered before them, which were much more broadly toxic to a much wider variety of organisms as well as people. There is the possibility that getting rid of them and using more of these other chemicals, which have not been banned, may make—