Can I generalize the question a bit? It is an issue as it relates to some of our assumptions that getting something at the farm gate or whatever somehow has to be healthier because it's more natural. At the same time, it doesn't have the same level of oversight. It's not so much the oversight of testing and inspection, but the processes in place to minimize the risk of infections and transmission.
If you look at the food supply system generally, in order to get disease, several things actually have to happen. There must be a pathogen in place, a bacteria, a virus or whatever. Food must have come in contact with a human, because it's not cooked right, it's not stored right, or there's cross-contamination, etc.
The reality is that animals carry a number of diseases, some of which can potentially infect humans. All the measures in the health system in commercial operations are there to minimize that risk, and then, at the end of the day as a consumer, we have to make sure we cook the meat appropriately. There are numbers involved. As Paul was saying, there's very close collaboration among ourselves, CFIA, and Health Canada to make sure that all the parts of the system are in fact working in the same direction, and then with provincial authorities, because again, in many of these areas, the provinces actually have authority.
My first concern is people should not make assumptions that because something is called “natural” or “organic” that somehow it is more healthy. It's like the debate about special bottled water, which often has more pathogens and more stuff in it than our tap water. These generalizations are not helpful for health.
I think it's absolutely essential in getting the best advice, in getting that kind of information, to not make assumptions and actually to understand the sources of the food and the risks, and the things we can do to mitigate that risk. That would be the Public Health approach, not just in terms of organic chickens, but more broadly, whether it's cheese or other things as well.