I was interested in your comment about the market-driven value-added piece versus a regulatory approach. They're not diametrically opposed, but quite often they're on opposite sides of how you decide to go about doing this.
Mr. Hacault or Mr. Anderson—it doesn't really matter who takes this one up—you said that about 15% of farms nationally, I think you said, have what you would consider to be a comprehensive health and safety plan for their entire establishment. Some might have HACCPs and some might have this, depending on what they do. The comment you made, which I found interesting—and when you think about it in that context, it makes sense—was that a safe farm equals safe food. I am paraphrasing, of course, what you said. It talks about all the safe handling of all the things that could have caused cross-contamination, if you're using pesticides or chemicals of any description, or if your processes aren't such that they're safe for not only the animals or the things you do but for you yourself—or your employees, if you have them.
The question that comes to mind for me is, if it's such a small percentage, how do we get folks to understand that we need to get closer to the 85% that aren't versus the 15% that are? How do we approach that? Is it a voluntary thing we should be looking at, understanding that a farm operation is, in a lot of cases, private property but also their home? That poses, I think, a bit of a dilemma from time to time, when it's also your home and you have folks saying, I'd like you to act in a certain way within your home. Most of us don't necessarily like folks to come into our house and tell us how we should act.
How do you foresee that uptake going higher?