Again, a number of the reports, ours and Ontario's, recognized the need for ensuring that when samples are taken in these types of circumstances, they're identified as high priority for testing on the basis that we are actually dealing with investigating food-borne illness, in this particular case, as opposed to randomly testing in the environment. The second component of that reality, again, is that when the samples were taken, these were samples that were what are called retention samples. The hospital retains the elements of the foods that are served to the patients for a period of time, should the circumstance warrant.
These were samples for meat. There were retention samples, so meat was placed into a retention box with cheese, with lettuce, with other elements of the sandwich, and held at the location. Part of the challenge was, while it was identified as meat, there was no way to verify that the cross-contamination couldn't come from one of the other elements and how it was maintained at the nursing home.
Beyond that, even identifying it as meat, there were no identifiers at that time as to the production, in terms of whether there was an establishment number, a production date, a lot code, anything that would have given us earlier information to help narrow it down, based on the supply records of those supplying the nursing home, so that we could fix it on a date. Nor was there any information available from the nursing home that linked the actual production dates, per se, with what was put into the sandwiches. So, again, this was part of that information verification activity that we were confronted with on August 6, and we worked closely, then, with Toronto Public Health to gather that information.