That's everyone's experience.
I thought Mr. Hoekstra made a really good point, which doesn't come through in the studies actually, but detection does not equate to risk. If you read some of the studies, you'd think that the mere presence of something proves that there's an issue or whatever. It just seems that some people think this assumption is critical to banning these things.
There's a study out of Guelph that talks about more prescriptive direction, more prescriptive use of the chemicals. Would you see that as an alternative to this ban, as a useful alternative to the ban, or do you think that the chemical prescriptions are already adequate?
It's your product.
That leads into my other question: why do you expect the other chemicals to be treated differently?
First of all, can you answer the question, do we need more prescriptive directions for the use of the chemical, a bit more control on it? Would that make it acceptable, or do you think it's fine the way it is?