I think what we have learned is that we definitely need alternatives assessment, because we can't have regrettable substitution. “Regrettable substitution” is kind of the name of the game with respect to taking out bisphenol A and replacing it with what we think is more toxic, bisphenol S and some of the other bisphenols. We definitely need alternatives assessment.
As I said earlier, we have to frame alternatives assessment broadly, to look at not just the drop-in replacement chemical, but whether we can actually change functionality. Can we change the nature of the product?
This is a paradigm shift from the chemical-by-chemical approach toward saying that we have some real issues going on here with sustainability and that we need to be asking questions in a bigger sense. We are not cutting it with the chemical-by-chemical approach, so can we move the conversation?
We can't do it all in today's hearing, but what we can do is open up the conversation to change the paradigm. We are living in a 1980s paradigm of chemical by chemical.