Thank you, André.
I don't want to get into a big debate about funding. My only point about raising funding was that based on our last presentation, the committee was left with the impression that there was no significant public funding for organic farming. My point was that there is funding, and $6.5 million is significant.
If you're going to compare it to all biotechnology, I think you raise an interesting point. The committee is here to talk about biotechnology and look into biotechnology, which is far bigger than GM. Biotechnology touches so many different sectors and commodities, in many different ways.
There are many research clusters that are funded in a comparable way to the organics. If you're going to lump them altogether and say, this, this, and this, and if I add it all up—my point was only that there is funding.
Anyway, I don't want to get into a big debate about it.
I do, though, want to understand the organic position better. As I said, biotechnology is a far wider discussion than just GM.
We've had a number of presenters here speaking from the organic point of view. I'm trying to understand, for example, if the organic sector is in favour of having a good regulatory and registration regime in place for plants and commodities—livestock—that has been influenced by biotechnology, to basically protect the interests of farmers and consumers but also allow for research and development to help farmers, or is it just a moratorium?
What I heard Arnold say was that it is a moratorium, and I'm not sure if I'm detecting that in some of the other presenters. Maybe you could clarify that for me, from the biotechnology point of view.