The United States is stricter, but for five or six very specific PFAS. It depends a bit on how the precautionary principle is applied. There are other PFAS that have chemical structures similar to the others, but for which we do not yet have all the toxicological information we need. If one PFAS molecule resembles another, but we have no evidence of its toxicity, do we assume it is not toxic and not regulate it? Do we assume that the resemblance is close enough for us to regulate that substance the same way as the others while awaiting further information?
That is the big difference between the United States, which regulates four of these substances, and Canada, where the regulations cover 25 of them. I think Health Canada's approach is the right one. At this point, a lot of information about toxicology is being published every day. We are going to clarify it, but while we are waiting to know where we stand, let's be cautious.