On cumulative effects, as I said in my remarks to begin with, we barely have the techniques to evaluate the cumulative effects of similar groups of chemicals. We're starting to do that with some pesticides. We've done it to a certain extent with smog-forming air pollutants. We don't even have the methodology to be able to evaluate the cumulative effects of many different chemicals, like the examples in the vacuum cleaner bag that I mentioned.
Given that scientific challenge that exists, people want to apply precaution; they want to reduce exposures, especially where they have the power to do so. The popularity of the cosmetic pesticide bans, first in Quebec and now in Ontario—well, first in municipalities across the country—stemmed from the recognition that exposure to multiple chemicals from many different sources was occurring and the desire to support initiatives that reduced exposures that are unnecessary. Those pesticide bans are popular across the country. They're very popular in Quebec and Ontario, where we've passed legislation like that. It's the same sort of thing here. People want to know so they can make choices. They can look at a cleaning product that has a whole lot of nasty chemicals in it, and they can look at another one, and they can choose that one because they don't need those chemicals; they choose not to have those. They're not asking for them not to be on the shelf, but they choose the alternative because they have the choice, and they have the information.
It's a way to be able to address the fact that we have so many exposures, and to give people some ability to take responsibility themselves and limit those exposures.