I would argue that if you look at all the jurisdictions that are focused on the neonics or the pollinator issue, there is consistency. PMRA is joined with the U.S. EPA and California DPR, arguably the biggest regulators in the world, and they're going through the re-evaluation process. They haven't had any knee-jerk reaction to the issue. They are continuing that process.
Ontario has proposed a decision and we're not sure where that's going to end up. They don't have the 300 scientists that PMRA does, so we're not sure. When we asked what information they had that PMRA doesn't, they didn't have any additional information. We're not sure how they came to this conclusion.
With regard to Europe, that would be a whole other discussion to have. They have a different structure there. In fact, the data that led them to their decision to put a moratorium on some products with neonics was based on a protocol that wasn't even adopted yet. In fact, if you take that protocol and you put any chemistry through it, whether it's a herbicide, fungicide, or insecticide, today none of them would pass that screening.
No one is arguing that all pesticides should be banned or put on a moratorium, even in Europe. This issue is very complex, and there is a lot of misinformation out there unfortunately. The issue has become emotionally charged and it's very difficult to have a rational discussion, which is why when we have a science-based system like the Pest Control Products Act and scientists review those data, they can set aside the emotion and look at the core science and what the information is telling us. To date, the information is telling them that restrictions aren't necessary.