There were a number of questions that some of the other panellists may be able to address better, but I want to pick up on a couple of other points that the previous witnesses mentioned.
The issue with risk group 2 is I think of greatest concern. What we have in the bill is a balance between a list that provides a level of clarity and some definitions, which will help us catch things that are not listed, for example. We've heard, from the E. coli issue, that you want to make sure we only talk about pathogenic types. We believe that the bill as a whole is only talking about human pathogens and does not address things that are non-pathogenic to humans.
But we are thinking of potentially putting in brackets—after “E. coli”, for instance—the pathogenic strains, which is reasonable. It's clear to us, but it seems to have generated a lot of angst among the community. While we can clarify that as an overarching piece, there are fairly easy ways in which we can probably deal with the risk of group 2 pathogens. But we are only interested in the ones that are pathogenic, not in the non-pathogenic ones.
In terms of the advisory committee, we'll certainly welcome any ideas people may have. We want it to be open and transparent. It has to be science-based; I think that is the fundamental principle. It cannot—