No, not yet.
There was certain talk about health alerts and recalls and the fact that they have to be confirmed in science. There was talk, for example, in the U.S. They gave warnings about eating tomatoes, but it actually turned out to be jalapeño peppers that were the problem.
My concern is that if recalls and health alerts are not founded in science and rather conclusive, it would be possible to have many recalls, many alerts. The public could actually become somewhat insensitive to them in terms of saying it's just another alert and it might be wrong, and this sort of thing has been wrong in the past. It's good for the governments, perhaps, in being able to say that they did advise the public, but if the public has less confidence in the alerts being issued, it might not be a move forward.
I wanted to ask your opinion on that. Do you see that actually as a risk, that if things are not conclusive enough and health alerts are issued much more frequently, in fact, the public could become less responsive and in fact that would increase the risk?