Just to clarify, we co-operate very closely with our partners at the U.S. EPA and other regulatory authorities around the world. The focus of that co-operation is typically a little more at the front end, as you describe it, in terms of understanding how we use all the available science and how we do our assessments. However, at the end of the day, we all recognize that we're all going to be making our own independent decisions.
In the case of imidacloprid, as an example, we completed our assessment of imidacloprid some time ago, and we made sure that we collaborated with the U.S. EPA. It essentially peer-reviewed our risk assessment, and came to essentially the same conclusion we did in terms of the level of risk that it posed. The U.S. also published its own risk assessment on imidacloprid recently, and it essentially agrees with the outcome of our risk assessment on imidacloprid.
We've done a lot of work with the U.S. EPA on the front end, if you're talking about pre-market authorizations. If you're talking about our re-evaluation program, post-market, many years down the road, we still collaborate with the U.S. EPA as much as we can. For example, on the pollinator issues around the neonics, we collaborate very closely. For many of the older chemicals, we are in contact with it. Sometimes our re-evaluation schedules don't fully align with those of the U.S. Both in the United States and in Canada, we have a statutory obligation to re-examine old pesticides on a 15-year cycle.