When we look at the history of our food supply chain, we see that it has been incredibly safe. Those risk-based approaches have done a great job of ensuring that the food on Canadian shelves is safe for the consumer, as well as safe for the environment when it's being produced.
With regard to that difference between hazard-based and risk-based, I think a good example would be wood dust. Wood dust is a class 1 carcinogen, so it's a hazard, but I don't think we would see the need for wood dust to fall under a complicated regulatory scheme for how it's used on a farm or how it's managed.
If you move to hazard-based, you're going to capture a lot of things that could be a hazard, but that's the key to risk. The exposure is what matters—how you are exposed to that hazard—and then allowing the flexibility for the departments to draw that line for when they need to see a product because they live in that space. They understand when they need to capture something for review and when a hazard is benign and can move freely into the marketplace.