Certainly, as you noted, the environment, the rights of indigenous populations and the rights of populations that are not always as recognized, including women, are part of what we like to see in any kind of progressive trade. For us a progressive trade agenda also means this expansion of how we look at our food safety and how we look at science-based decision-making, for crop protection materials and so on. We can look to the EU and see what happened there. The green deal has started to, I would say, come apart at the seams to a certain degree, because they had a very aggressive agenda—too aggressive, as it turns out. We obviously made comments when they were developing the green deal. I spoke to one of their panels, because this is very important to us. Of course there's an environmental focus for them, but industry is always looking at the science. I think all producers are always very concerned about its being a science-based decision and whether that is going to impact the capacity to feed the population.
We're looking at that as part of a progressive trade agenda, for certain. Is this going to advance the industry and the ability of the industry to feed the populations, or is it going to put up non-tariff—or even tariff—barriers that could in any way hinder that? That's something we're always looking at. We consider what the key requirements are, and of course right now we can't overstate those related to the environment. Obviously we all know what's happening with global climate change, and for an industry that plants its product in the ground and hopes that it doesn't get too much rain or too much cold or too much sun or drought, it is very important to always be considering the environmental practices of both the exporting—