I'd say each country has its own set of non-tariff barriers. In the global meat trade, meat will be like water; it will follow the path of least resistance. Where it starts encountering resistance, the industry has to decide whether there is enough market potential there to actually absorb some of the costs of managing or dealing with some of these non-tariff barriers.
Ractopamine is one example. It's a product that's available to use, but our industry has decided not to use it so that our industry can access the market that has placed that barrier. Would some of our members prefer it not to be there? Absolutely, but it is there, and we have to make that decision.
It comes down to understanding and knowing what markets are available along with the market conditions, and then moving forward. At CPC, we deal with that, but we also rely on expertise from within the country, as well as the experts in the country that we want to access. Also, the federal government helps us navigate some of the discussions that have to take place between governments about market access or when there is an FTA.
If we look at the EU deal, there was a very strong focus on the FTAs to deal with the tariffs. That was the focus and whatnot. There were processing companies accessing the EU and using those for their knowledge to continue.
When it comes down to the health check mark, frankly, that was something that was discovered as we started moving through the process and started dealing with the market intelligence. However, that particular issue is something that cannot be dealt with through the FDA but could be through government-to-government discussions after the fact.
Some of the issues we encounter include things like, certainly, phytosanitary issues that CFIA has to deal with and explaining the food inspection system that we have in place and how it compares to the market we want to get to. Those are the areas we need to focus on.