I'm not familiar with the study you specifically spoke of, the quality of life study. However, I think in terms of the negative impacts of GMO, we've invested in a lot of science as an industry along with government and universities, and we're seeing improved animal health outcomes.
Our industry has done a lot of work around antimicrobial resistance, and we don't see it increasing in many aspects. We're monitoring it closely in those risk categories for cattle where we do see concern.
The fact that we've been feeding GMO-based feed for a very long time and we're not seeing negative consequences, I think, demonstrates how industry is doing. We do absolutely need ongoing monitoring, especially when you look at gene insertion across species. That's something you have to be very rigorous about in terms of your product approvals. Industry agrees with that, in the sense that we also need the long-term sustainability in the industry.
Many of the producers behind me produce not only cattle but also grains. There are concerns in terms of alterations that could affect the biosystem, but I think generally, as it was explained to me by one of our scientists, you don't see DNA just floating in the air and pollinating across species. That's why these things don't happen in nature, where you just see improved alfalfa varieties because they have cross-pollinated with another species. These things take a long time.
We do need the rigorous approval processes, but at this point in time, we're not seeing those negative impacts. In terms of human health, the research we've done has shown no negative impact on human health connected to the consumption of genetically modified food.
We look at that, but obviously our industry is not focused primarily on that, because our product itself is not necessarily being directly genetically modified. Monitoring and surveillance are fundamentally important, but we also need to make sure we're looking at the outcomes and truly believing in them.