Phytosanitary problems in trade are legendary, and they're the most difficult to face. There is a risk to using the toxic label for our exports in Canada. There are only a few countries that export potassium chloride.
Coming back to the question Mr. Godfrey asked about the onus being on the industry, when I used the term “industry” I meant agriculture in general. Ultimately it is farmers producing food using our products who will face the burden of proving that their system is safe and that the food they're producing is wholesome. That's why the label “toxic” for products that are used in agriculture has to be very carefully and judiciously used. I don't think that the way the act has been applied--and I think this relates to the way the act is drafted and the tools that are there--has been sensitive to the needs of agriculture.
There are people within Canada who are promoting different agricultural systems, and farmers are the ones in the end who are going to face a lot of the burden in explaining to the public why they're using a product that the Government of Canada says is, in the words of the other group there, “toxic” or according to the dictionary “poison”.
I don't think that Canadians want to be told erroneously that the food they're eating has been produced using a toxic substance.