I'd just like to make it clear that the decision was not political. The decision was driven by science. That's how we make our decisions.
As Mr. Aucoin pointed out with the pollinator assessments, there was a lot of pressure to deregister the chemical based on the impacts on pollinators. We let the science speak. We have yet to make a negative decision on that. In fact, our preliminary assessment says that we don't think there are major issues.
I absolutely feel and believe that there is evidence out there that there are risks of concern. From my perspective, the benchmark has not been met in terms of giving us the information that we need to determine that the risks are acceptable. We are working with the multi-stakeholder forum. We have right from the beginning. We are participating in all three working groups. We're helping stakeholders to develop a plan for developing monitoring information that might help the decision. If that information can be generated in a reasonable amount of time ahead of the final decision, we'll consider it.
The information has to be compelling in that it shows a different picture than what we're seeing now.