If I may, I'll add to what was a very good question.
One thing that I think we are all going to face with both this and, of course, the targets in the new modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is this: When you talk about non-animal testing alternatives, it isn't just one for one—having an animal test and now having another test that replaces it. It is a whole different way of thinking about testing. We are going to need, as a country, to develop regulators, scientists and formulators who are well educated and versed in those new methods. Every country that has successfully implemented a ban has a centre in their country where this is focused.
We are fortunate to have a centre, at the University of Windsor, for alternatives to animal-testing methods. They are going to need, I think, all of our support—government and industry—to be able to do further work, not only in developing alternative methods but also in getting regulatory acceptance for them, which is going to be very critical under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Even, and perhaps more importantly, training our regulatory staff and the Environment and Health Canada formulators in our industry, and other scientists, on how to use those new methods.... These are very different ways of thinking about testing and, as Michael pointed out, they can often produce much better scientific results.
We are at the beginning of what is a bit of a revolution in the way we think about safety testing.