The point I would make about looking at other jurisdictions is that what is an acceptable level of uncertainty varies among jurisdictions. While we have the same science around the world in regard to, say, some of the polybrominated diphenyl ethers, on action applying precaution in the face of uncertainty, there is a greater willingness to provide action in the face of uncertainty in certain jurisdictions than we have in Canada. That's the point I'm trying to make.
The question that comes to my mind—and I think Mr. Teeter makes a very valid point—in terms of third-party peer review is that the challenge really is how to select an impartial panel of scientists who are both as knowledgeable around the science as the researchers themselves are around the science, and share a broad spectrum of understanding of risk and precaution, so that you have that debate at the table when trying to determine whether to take action.