Thank you.
I want to go back to the precautionary principle for a moment and actually talk a bit about something connected to that idea of reverse onus of safety. It's something that has certainly been brought up in other jurisdictions. I'm thinking of situations where products have come forward that might be problematic--there might be a hazard or there might be a health concern--but you can't associate direct causality. I guess some of the problems are a result of how different substances combine and have causality with each other in the environment and that is also of concern. In other words, when you have a new substance or a new product that reacts with another one and can become a health hazard, it can be problematic.
If there is precautionary principle, as in a lens that one looks through, would it not then be a logical next step to talk about the reverse onus being placed on whomever? Typically it would be industry. It's fine to say it won't harm me, but prove it. I don't want to wait ten years to find out, as we have in the past.... If you look at any of our bodies right now, we're walking around in an interesting chemical soup. Is it not important here to look at reverse onus to, if you will, be a little more precise in how we implement the precautionary principle?