It's a delicate balance. We need market access. Absolutely we need to continue to grow that, but we need it to be based on science. To fundamentally alter production practices and to not have access to those technologies can severely hamper our industry. I go back to the fact that we're a North American industry. If we negotiate something that means we can't use genetically modified corn in feed for our animals, those animals will move south of the border. If the U.S. has a more favourable trade agreement, they'll go to that country, just not under a Canadian label.
I think that's the one thing we're always cognizant of. First of all, we need to ensure that we negotiate things based on sound science. It may take a bit longer, but we hope that it prevails.
That's why it's so important for us to present sound science as we move into discussions with the EU. Demonstrating the animal transport outcomes that we've achieved through research is huge in order to answer some of the animal welfare questions they have around travel distance times. Having the science to support those things as you go into a discussion is much better than trying to defend production practices either when you're exporting or when you're near to signing a deal.