I think on the cosmetic ban issue, it again comes back to what those decisions are being based on. I don't disagree that if you're in a watershed and you get runoff issues with the application of some of these products and it's proven that it's an issue, then maybe in some of those areas you need to do something specific. But an outright ban based on it just being cosmetic and not on anything scientific, if you could scientifically show a runoff problem in a certain area, then that's your science-based decision process there. You might be able to carve out that area. I think it's applied too generally and too broadly, without any basis for it other than to say that we have a little problem here, and therefore we'll take a blanket approach, not based on science, and apply it to a larger area. That's where we see an undermining process starting to happen. We see it as a threat if it's used to any degree and starts to expand, especially into agriculture. That would be a big problem for us.
On March 10th, 2015. See this statement in context.