I did, but when the subamendment was withdrawn, I no longer did at that point.
I do have a follow-up question to Mr. Thériault's questions, just to make sure I understand.
The reason I think we have the double prescription is that there are, really, two tests to be met for an advertiser to be prohibited from advertising to children under 13. It has to be food that's listed that also contains more than the prescribed level of sugars. The reason I understood this was necessary, after our last meeting, is that, if you didn't have the first “prescribed”—if you just had “foods that contain more than the prescribed level of sugars”—that may capture things we don't want to capture, because they may have more than the prescribed sugars. I'm sorry about my bad science, but it could be like an orange or an apple. It may have higher than the prescribed levels of sugar, but it's not something we want to prohibit in advertising. I think the reverse is true as well. It wouldn't just be....
I guess you could just have “prescribed foods”. If you did the homework in advance and only put “prescribed foods that meet the prescribed levels of sugars, saturated fat or sodium”, which were predetermined, you would not necessarily need the second “prescribed”. That's kind of where.... I understand the first “prescribed”, but why is the second one necessary? Could you not do that work in advance and simply put, on the prescribed list of foods that can't be advertised, prescribed foods that don't meet the level of sugar, saturated fat or sodium? Why do we need that second part?