Under CEPA there's a very clear division between risk assessment, which is a scientific examination of the risk of the substance that it could pose on human health, and the environment. That is very separate from how the substance is used and how it should be managed and that's intentionally so.
Back to that question of alternatives, when John Moffet and his team look at a particular substance that has been declared toxic and they're trying to determine the best way to manage this, how should we control this? Where should we eliminate its uses?
The question of what alternatives are available enters into that discussion very clearly. Where there aren't very many alternatives, you've got a small suite of tools to rely on until you see other innovations. Where there are multiple alternatives, you've got a big suite of tools to choose from, and you can put a wider range of limitations and management on that substance.
Again, very clearly, assessment is a scientific process. It's the risk management that considers the uses and the alternatives for that product.