On the whole area of regulatory harmonization, and there are other ways in which they are expressing it, regulatory coherence, the question is whether this is going to be down to the lowest common denominator. Is that what we are going to see here and to what extent is it going to facilitate challenges to public regulations that we have in place or that we might have in place? My concern is public health, of course, but in other areas as well, that is definitely a concern.
I would be very worried that we would end up with lower standards than otherwise would be the case.
One of the key things that's been happening in the health sector for a number years now is that we're increasingly emphasizing the importance of evidence-based policy decisions in health. That is to say, what government should do should be based on the best possible evidence. That's certainly happening on the medical side.
In terms of public policy with respect to food regulation, to get back to your original question, this is something we should be doing on the basis of what is the best evidence, and not out of concern that we might get sued if we try to do that. That may be, in a way, how the government will be looking at this if it feels that the trade agreement obligations are ones that open the door to lawsuits against the government if it regulates in particular ways. We don't want to see that happen.