Certainly I don't think you can avoid those conversations. In a way it comes back to Mr. Watson's question. I'd say the generic answer to what we could do to enhance the science base that CEPA facilitates is to create obligations, not permissions, at the very generic level. So let's collect the information that's meaningful and relevant.
Secondly, invest in the biomonitoring. I think that's clear. Now, whether that needs to be legislative or some kind of implementation tool, I wouldn't venture into how one does that, but invest in the biomonitoring.
Pertaining to your question, the third comment I'd make is build evaluation frameworks that are robust and that allow for solid interpretation, given the epidemiological limitations. Epidemiology is ultimately a crude tool. Into the future, that might improve a little bit, but the debates are going to be there forever.
I thnk the precautionary principle is a very valid approach to take. You use risk-monitoring approaches, and as long as the evaluation frameworks are constructed in a robust way that withstands transparent scrutiny by all sides of the debate, I think that's probably the best you can do.