I think that question is probably better placed to medical experts when they're here, if they haven't been here yet and are coming. I speak from the veterinary side on the animal dimensions of the public health problem, so all I can do is quote figures that have been developed in the medical sector.
As I said in my opening comments, that's where the crisis is best described and most clearly articulated. It's clear in that sector that there is a major crisis in bacteria like those I already mentioned: the gram negative enterobacteriaceae, some of the gram positives like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci, and some of the sexually transmitted diseases. There are serious possibilities of running out of effective antibiotics for those. The best evidence we have in terms of the animal contribution to that is through these food-borne enterics.
WHO put out a top 10 list earlier this year, and salmonella was on that list. Non-typhoidal salmonella nowadays in developed countries mainly has a food-animal reservoir, so there's an impact there for sure.
At the end of the day, we've tried for many years to come up with a quantitative estimate of the percentage of the impact that comes from animals. That's been very evasive, and I have my doubts we'll ever get to that point. I think now what we're settling to is what you've heard from us today, that all sectors have to do their part to reduce overuse wherever they can with the goal of bringing down resistance in all sectors. We can be strategic in terms of where the most important emphasis is and fine-tune it, but I think our approach needs to be that we take steps to reduce overuse to improve infection control and prevention, to improve surveillance, and all those other things as well.