Well, I think there are clearly costs for producers, and these are incremental. There is no market premium for that; I think it's implicit to the consumer that food be safe regardless of how that happens. Again, there is no market premium, and food safety as a condition of access to the market shouldn't be what will drive some producers out of the industry.
As far as government responsibility is concerned, I certainly think it's been a very positive, appropriate, and expected action by the CFIA, the Government of Canada, to have set up criteria and protocols based on science as to how groups such as ourselves, or the other numerous national associations who have developed food safety programs, go about doing that. So it is based on science. It is credible. The system is there, and they review it and pronounce on it.
As to who should pay, clearly the producer does not get his fair share out of the market and out of the supply chain. For us it's very important that we work with other stakeholders in the supply chain, so there's a reasonable confidence at the producer level that we know that things are being done all along the way. The producer at the farm can have done everything to the best of his ability, and when the truck leaves the yard that's all he knows: it's left the yard and he knows he's done his best. We have to have the confidence that as products move through the chain, everybody else—Chris' group and others—will take responsibility in the next step.