I think the only thing I would add is that the term “toxic” is a loaded term. When the public, and also people in companies that purchase from other companies, see the term “toxic”, it has a really negative connotation, and they think toxic equals banned. Some things on schedule 1 are like that--they are banned--but a lot of them aren't. They're supposed to be managed in a fairly narrow area where the risk has been identified by the risk assessment, but in other areas they're not an issue. Shannon talked about that in terms of ammonia. So the problem with the word “toxic” is that it has that loaded connotation that is maybe appropriate in some cases but carries a stigma in other cases where it's not appropriate.
And it's not just the public. Our members are worried about that from a public perspective, but they're just as worried about it from the perspective of the people in other companies who buy from them. So I think getting away from that loaded word would help. There are a variety of solutions you can use, whether it's “substances to be managed” or “substances on schedule 1” or “substances that meet the criteria of section 64”. I think there's a bit of ambivalence about that.