That's correct. There are two issues.
The WTO process continues to work. You've had cases brought to the WTO where the parties have agreed with the initial decision and haven't advanced it to the appeals stage. I think it was Turkey and.... I can't remember who. There have been cases where it has continued to work simply because countries have chosen just to take the initial ruling.
The larger issue is that, as with MRLs, there are fundamental differences here. The Europeans have a different approach as to how to regulate food. It is not science to prove that there should be no harm, but you actually have to prove no harm, so they take a different approach. With the WTO, the Americans take a different approach to the WTO than do we, the Europeans and the Japanese. The Americans believe that they agreed to only what was signed in the agreement and nothing else. We believe in a living WTO, where you can have interpretation of rules and can continue to grow. That's a fundamental disagreement that we're just not going to be able to square.