I have tremendous respect for Dr. Holley, his colleagues at the University of Manitoba, and the good work they do in food safety. Dr. Holley raises a valid point—one size does not fit all. What we've attempted to do, with the introduction of mandatory testing under HACCP, is to establish a baseline with which the company assessments and our more frequent assessments can be related. What we're keen to do in this process, now that we have that established and we know there's a consistent way of looking at this, is to take it to the next level. This will mean looking at the individual risk profiles of plants—volume, type of product, destination of marketing, use of food processing aids that inhibit microbial growth, adoption of sodium diacetate. I think there was some media coverage recently about an operation in Ontario that has introduced a new packaging technology in which there's high pressure applied to the packaging following the cook stage and the filling of the packaging. This technology will also reduce or inhibit the growth of listeria.
Having that baseline—and I think this is fully in line with what Dr. Holley is saying—we can adjust it over time to incorporate best practices. If we find a problem, either through our testing or through the trends analysis in the company testing, we have the authority to ratchet that up immediately and go further. So it doesn't mean that it's static at any time, and I think this is in keeping with where Dr. Holley is going. You can't be dependent on environmental testing alone. There are other things you have to be able to do. But with respect to environmental testing, it's important that we have a threshold, and that we have the capacity to go further. This will include environmental testing in other areas and it will be based on compliance, performance, and consideration of other factors in the plant, such as new technologies, that would reduce the level of regulatory intervention but still achieve the food safety outcome.