It's just interesting, because they talked to us about how they were considering all the science and all the different data they could find.
It seems to me, though, that there are two parts to this. One was that these chemicals were being blamed for the bee kills. It turned out that they didn't have the impact that people thought they would have on them. Then it seems as though there has almost been an effort to shift this attention to something else, to see if we can find a place where these things are considered more toxic and then ban them. It's almost as though we're trying to find an excuse for the ban rather than doing the science to prove it, or whatever.
With the real-world data you've done on aquatic invertebrates, are you comfortable with the results and would you like them to consider that? Do you consider that to be valuable for them?