The question related to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business association and Ms. Pohlmann's saying that we need clear language in compliance and regulations.
We were invited to comment on specific examples. It's interesting, because a lot of the costs in the natural product industry are in the policy and guidance documents—in how those are implemented. You go through this onerous licensing process, which can take you an exorbitant amount of time. Let's say you then want to do a change. You file for any type of change. You have to give notice of a change because something minor has been tweaked. Then, all of a sudden, you're under a full-scale review. The industry is absolutely confused, because you don't know from one time to the next what type of decision you're going to get. There's no consistency in the application. It's not a language question, except that the policy documents and the law as is are not giving the industry clarity on what to expect, going forward.
That is in every part of our regulations, which are quite detailed, right down to good manufacturing practices, standards of evidence and the like. Because we're in the drug model.... As I said, in the United States, the same products are deemed by law to be safe. The FDA needs to have actual evidence of a specific product causing harm before they take any action. However, we have to prove products are safe. I know of a company that couldn't prove that encapsulated parsley was safe, because—wouldn't you know it?—nobody's done a safety study on parsley. It would be very helpful to go back in time. Shouldn't we be clearer that, if an ingredient is in our food supply, it's been deemed safe for policy reasons?
I'll let JohnFrank go. I don't want to dominate the discussion.