Salmonella in Raw Products – Can FSIS Request a Recall?

By Barbara J. Masters, D.V.M.

I am often asked whether or not the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) can request a recall for meat or poultry products merely because the products test positive for Salmonella.  The answer to that question today is no.  However, there are times FSIS can request a recall of raw meat and poultry products for Salmonella.  If at any point FSIS determines there is specific product (specific lot, specific product date) in commerce making people sick, it will ask for a voluntary recall of that specific production of product, regardless of whether there is a positive test result.

What is important to understand is that for outbreak recalls, FSIS will use the same thought process regardless of whether the pathogen is considered an adulterant or not.  FSIS would look for the following four factors as part of the outbreak investigation:

  • There are related illnesses (an outbreak) as determined by the DNA analysis of samples from case patients;
  • The evidence supports the conclusion that the likely source of the illnesses was a specific product;
  • The plant produces that specific product; and
  • A specific production of that plant’s product was purchased by, or available to, the case patients at the time and location of the illnesses.

If all of these criteria are met, FSIS will request a recall of the product implicated in the outbreak.  In this circumstance, FSIS is not relying on a positive test result (from the product) to request the product be removed from commerce, rather they are relying on evidence that the specific product has been implicated in causing an outbreak.

In summary, today, FSIS can request an establishment to conduct a voluntary recall for products that test positive for an adulterant (e.g., E. coli O157:H7), but not for product that tests positive for Salmonella.  However, in the case of a foodborne outbreak, FSIS applies the same rules to all pathogens.  If the evidence supports that a specific production of product is the likely source of the illnesses in the outbreak, FSIS will request a voluntary recall (not based on test results of the product).

About Dr. Masters

Mixed in with the attorneys at OFW Law is the former USDA Food Safety Inspection Service’s (FSIS) Administrator, Dr. Barbara Masters.  Dr. Masters is a veterinarian who spent eighteen years with FSIS – the final three years as Acting Administrator and Administrator.  During her rise to the Administrator’s position, Dr. Masters served as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Field Operations.  While in these key leadership positions at FSIS, Dr. Masters’ primary focus was on the implementation of science-based policies for the protection of public health.

John Block: Bird Flu

By John R. Block

There is no industry more volatile or more uncertain than agriculture. The drought came and Texas and Oklahoma ranchers had to sell their cattle – not enough feed. Beef prices shot up. We still don’t have enough beef. The pork industry was hit with a swine disease. Thousands of baby pigs died. That resulted in a pork shortage and those prices shot up.

Now, we have bird flu. Who would have predicted? The H5N2 virus has killed 47 million chickens. We should be producing enough eggs to meet domestic demand and be able to export more than 30 million eggs per month. Not now. Iowa has been hurt the most – losing 30 million birds. That’s half the laying hens in the state.

The price of eggs has doubled. Egg processors making cakes, cookies, Krispy Kreme donuts, etc. are crying for eggs. For the first time in 10 years, we have authorized imports. Seven European countries have been approved to import shell eggs. Government officials say it will take as long as 2 years to get our production of eggs back to where it was before the virus.

This is not the first time we have been hit with a bird flu virus. When I was Secretary of Agriculture in the early 80s, we had our last bad bout with bird flu. That was a disaster then. But this time is much worse.

The Department of Agriculture oversees these problems. Farmers are compensated for the birds that die or are destroyed. According to Secretary Vilsack, the cost could exceed a half billion dollars. We are losing a lot of birds, including egg-laying hens, broilers, and turkeys. It will take a lot of money and time to rebuild the business.

Stopping the spread of the virus will not be so easy. Canadian geese in the state of Michigan have tested positive. They fly everywhere. In the meantime, the industry is looking for a vaccine to protect against the virus. None approved as of yet.

There is no industry more essential to mankind than food production. There is no industry more uncertain. And yet, our farmers and ranchers persist and get the job done. Did you know that this spring world food prices fell to their lowest level since 2009?

John Block was Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 1981-1985, where he played a key role in the development of the 1985 Farm Bill.

Why Adesina’s Election is Important for Agriculture

By Marshall L. Matz, as published in Agri-Pulse

In a surprise upset, Dr. Akinwumi (Akin) Adesina was elected to be the next President of the African Development Bank (ADB), defeating seven rivals in six rounds of voting.  Adesina holds a PhD in agriculture economics from Purdue and has been serving as the Minister of Agriculture in Nigeria since 2011.

Adesina is the first agriculture economist to become President of the ADB.  He is a dynamic leader with a passion for rural development (and bow-ties).  According to The Guardian, under his leadership in Nigeria, “food production increased by 22 million tons and food imports dropped more than a third,” creating some three million jobs.

The ADB is one of Africa’s largest lending institutions, making Adesina one of the continent’s most prominent financial leaders. Africa now has six of the world’s fastest growing economies and, as agriculture becomes more efficient, the economy will grow even faster. Over 65% of the population farms or is engaged in agriculture. However, yields are so low that feeding a family takes 70% the its disposable income and Africa must spend $35 billion to import food.

Adesina’s goal is to make Africa globally competitive.  Upon his election he said, “A big thing for us in Africa is to create an inclusive model with jobs for Africa’s youth, jobs for Africa’s women, revive Africa’s rural areas and have regional integration for shared prosperity.” He also noted that “there is no developing Africa without empowering women.”

The challenge Adesina faces will not be easy.  Political stability varies widely in Africa’s 54 sovereign nations as does infrastructure, education and health care, but things are clearly changing and changing fast.

Adesina will have some important allies to work with in his new capacity:

  • The Chairperson of the African Union, Dr. Nikosazana Diamini- Zuma, is asking all African countries to invest at least 10% of their respective national budgets in agriculture.  The program, called the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), is having an impact.
  • Dr. Agnes Kalibata, the new President of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) holds a doctorate from the University of Massachusetts in entomology.  She was the Minister of Agriculture in Rwanda and was widely considered to be one of the most successful agriculture ministers in sub-Saharan Africa.  At AGRA, Dr. Kalibata is working with African experts in some 18 counties to fulfill the vision of food self-sufficiency.
  • Strive Masiyiwa, the Chairman and CEO of Econet Wireless, is the “Bill Gates of Africa” according to Forbes, but is focusing the attention of Africa’s private sector on agriculture through his work with AGRA and Grow Africa.
  • Former Secretary General Kofi Annan, Chairman Emeritus of AGRA,  says “it’s time to turn hoes into tractors,” and is committed to helping through the Kofi Annan Foundation.

These African leaders are working closely with the G-7, G-20 and key leaders closer to home here in the United States. Those leaders include: Gayle Smith, who is an Assistant to President Barack Obama and Senior Director at the National Security Council. In that capacity, Smith is responsible for global development and helped to craft the Camp David Accords creating a commitment to African agriculture.

During the Clinton Administration, Smith was Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council.  President Obama has now nominated Smith to be the next Director of the Agency for International Development (AID). Smith is well-qualified for the AID position and hopefully, the U.S. Senate will quickly confirm her nomination.

While there are many others committed to growing Africa out of poverty, in the U.S., special recognition must also go to Pamela Anderson at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Judith Rodin at the Rockefeller Foundation.

All of these people are coming together for Africa. The Renaissance is underway and the election of Dr. Akin Adesina is the latest very important development. According to Dr. Adesina, “The kind of Africa we need today is an Africa where the young people want to stay, not a place they want to move away from…and an Africa we can all be proud to call home.”

As Adesina knows, agriculture development must be at the center of the African Renaissance. As modern seeds and inputs, along with education, reache the stallholder farmers, production and profitability will improve. That will drive the African economy to new levels of success and, in the process, move Africa and the world toward food security.

The African Development Bank made an inspired choice.

Marshall Matz specializes in agriculture and food security at OFW Law in Washington, D.C.  He also serves as the DC representative for the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.

John Block: GMOs Under Assault

By John R. Block

We can’t seem to silence or satisfy the loud scream of opposition to GE crops. The reason probably is that up until now we have ignored them. It’s time to stand up and set the record straight.

GE food is safe and even beneficial according to 88% of scientists. We have conducted more than 1,000 studies. We have been eating GE food for more than 20 years – no one has gotten sick.

The fact is that for thousands of years, farmers have been improving crops through selective breeding. That process alters genes. We have found that in the laboratory we can do it faster.

Never mind the facts, the critics are beating the drums. Three states have passed labeling laws. Vermont is in the lead as they begin to implement their law. It sounds simple. Just label the food if it has GMO products in the food.

It’s not that simple. Vermont has a long list of exemptions. Animal products are exempt – beef, pork, chicken, dairy. But keep in mind the animals were fed GMO corn and soybean meal.

Trying to get out ahead of everyone, Chipotle recently announced that it has gone GMO free. But it’s not really free. The soft drinks are made with GMO corn sweetener. The burritos have GMO corn-fed beef, pork, chicken, and GMO sour cream.

The U.S. Congress is considering as many as 30 bills to deal with the GMO debate. You may wonder where all of this noise is coming from. Yes, there are individuals that sincerely are concerned about GMO safety. However, the organic companies (some of them are huge) are helping to push the false argument about risk. If they succeed, they can sell more product and make more money.

This debate is not over. You will soon read about the next step in plant technology – gene editing. Gene editing is a more precise way to alter plant traits.

The leading critics of GMOs are totally inconsistent. First, they support the science on global warming, but ignore the science on GMOs. Next, they pretend to care about the poor, but genetic engineering helps the poor by keeping the cost of food down. The world will not produce enough food without new technology. Finally, if they want to reduce the use of chemicals and energy, GE also does that.

Stay tuned.

John Block was Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 1981-1985, where he played a key role in the development of the 1985 Farm Bill.

John Block: “COOL” Isn’t Cool

By John R. Block

As a farmer, we understand that if you have something that doesn’t work, you fix it. It will just cost you money if you ignore the problem. Somehow, the federal government doesn’t seem to understand that common sense fact.

The Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) law was first passed in 2002. Canada and Mexico have been challenging the law now for 13 years. The World Trade Organization (WTO) just this week ruled it to be a violation of U.S. international trade obligations. We are a member of the WTO and therefore should live within the rules. That is our obligation, and we expect other countries to do the same.

This week, for the third time, the WTO ruled against us. That ruling gives Canada and Mexico the legal right to retaliate. Canada already has a list of proposed restrictions, which will result in a dramatic cut in our exports to Canada and Mexico. That is serious. Canada and Mexico are our number 1 and 2 export markets. Besides, they are our closest neighbors.

Senator Pat Roberts (KS) had this to say: “If Congress doesn’t act swiftly, retaliation will wreak havoc on the U.S. economy.” I think we should be aware that if we don’t fix this law, it will cost us millions of dollars in ag exports as well as other exports.

The law today requires that meat from a calf born in Canada and shipped to the U.S. bare a label that reads “Born in Canada, raised and slaughtered in U.S.”  Just imagine the cost and confusion that can cause.  What about the Montana farmer who imports Canadian calves and mixes his own U.S. calves with the Canadian calves?  By law, he would have to keep track of them and market them separately. The U.S. processing plant would then have to process them separately. That would be the only way to ensure the Canadian label was on the Canadian steak.

Consumers say they have the right to know where that animal has been. Why? It isn’t worth the hassle. USDA just released new study results that point out the COOL labeling policy costs consumers nearly 8 billion dollars over 10 years.

We don’t need to try and change COOL. We’ve tried that before. COOL isn’t cool. Just get rid of it.

John Block was Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 1981-1985, where he played a key role in the development of the 1985 Farm Bill.

Mike’s Legacy

By Marshall L. Matz, as published in Agri-Pulse

Michael B. Jandreau, the visionary leader of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in South Dakota for almost 40 years, passed away last month at the age of 71.  Known to all as “Mike” he believed that Indian Tribes had to establish a private sector economy on the Reservations if they were to participate in the American dream. The historic treaties of the 1800’s between Tribes and the United States, while still very important, were not enough to prepare Indian people for the 21st century.  For rural Tribes, that means a focus on agriculture.

Jandreau testified before Congress and the South Dakota Legislature many times in support of Tribal sovereignty but he also believed that the treaties were not a business plan. The Tribes needed to develop a private sector economy to benefit all Tribal members.   In 2004, he made history as a Tribal Chairman by telling the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs: “Sovereignty is the key to tribal existence.  But, in the long run, for sovereignty to survive, there must be economic sovereignty as well.  We must develop a private sector economy.”

Jandreau again emphasized the importance of the private sector when he addressed the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs a few years later: “It is painful to read The World is Flat and to read that the United States is outsourcing jobs to China and India when many Indian Reservations have an unemployment rate over 80% and a third world standard of living.”

Tribes located in the Missouri River Valley may face the most difficult challenge of all Reservations given their remote locations.  The unemployment rates on rural Reservations, along with social indicators like infant mortality, diabetes, and suicide rates, are closer to those of the third world than those of the United States.  Tribal members face the Hobson’s choice of leaving their families and culture or staying on the Reservation and a life with less potential than other Americans.  Only a private sector economy can solve these problems and agriculture has the best potential in these rural areas.

USDA photo by Ken Hammond.

USDA photo by Ken Hammond.

Mike foresaw the reservation’s agriculture potential not only in growing larger volumes of agricultural commodities on Tribal and Reservation lands, but also in adding value to those commodities on the Reservation itself.  Processing the commodities created good jobs for Tribal members and pride in what was produced in the name of the Tribe.

Under Jandreau’s leadership, Lower Brule established a successful Farm Corporation and one of the most diverse and innovative economies of any Reservation in the Nation. The Lower Brule Farm Corporation grows edible beans, has a commercial buffalo herd and is the largest producer of popcorn in the country.  The farm has expanded to some 40,000 acres with 10,000 acres under irrigation. They sell popcorn nationwide to the major brands and also market under their own brand name “Lakota Foods.”

As important as agriculture is to Lower Brule, Mike also understood that agriculture alone could not raise the standard of living for Tribal members to parity with surrounding non-Indian communities. He shrewdly recognized that the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 empowered tribes to team up with the private sector to develop off-reservation businesses that could supplement on-reservation services.  It took a full decade and trips to the Supreme Court to bring land into trust near the Reservation on Interstate 90 in South Dakota that can be developed into Tribal businesses.

Jandreau successfully urged the Congress to enact the Lower Brule Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act, the Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act and the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place, among other pieces of legislation.  Wakpa Sica seeks to help all Tribes of the Great Sioux Nation by providing support for Tribal Courts in order to attract investment to the Reservations.

His unfulfilled dream was an Indian Agriculture Act (IAA). Upon his motion, the National Congress of American Indians passed a resolution urging the United States Congress to “make the Indian Agriculture Act a title in the 2012 Farm Bill.”

While pieces of an IAA were included in the last Farm Bill, Jandreau always looked to the future. Rural, agriculture-based Tribes need extension services, loan guarantees, irrigation, infrastructure, and better internet, among other things, to underpin a farm economy.  South Dakota State University and Mike were working together to improve extension services on all South Dakota Reservations.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been very responsive to Tribes, but to solve a challenge of this magnitude, it will take a Presidential initiative that brings together all Departments of Government.  The White House Rural Council has established a focus on Tribes for this exact reason.

Jandreau proposed paying for increased services by using a portion of the revenue from the sale of electricity generated by the dams along the Missouri.  His thinking was that the water belonged to Indians (under the Winters Doctrine), the dams flooded Tribal land and, therefore, the revenue should be shared with the Tribes.  The Western Area Power Administration, WAPA, earns a billion dollars a year from the sale of electricity.  The revenue is not shared with the Tribes and, in fact, the Tribes have to pay for electricity.

Mike received many awards and commendations over his life but his true legacy lies not in the past but in his vision for the future: A comprehensive Indian Agriculture Act, completing the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place, attracting private capital to the Reservations, and distributing the Keepseagle vs. USDA litigation funds to the farmers who were damaged.  As Mike noted in closing his testimony to Congress, “The Reservations are a part of the United States, but we are not a part of the U.S. economy.”

Marshall Matz started his career with South Dakota Legal Services on the Crow Creek Reservation before moving to the Senate Committee on Agriculture.  He currently specializes in agriculture at OFW Law in Washington, D.C.

John Block: Down on the Farm

By John R. Block

I was on the farm last week and early this week. My timing was right. I wanted to be there for the corn planting. We finished and started on soy beans. I have never seen the seeds go in the ground under better conditions. That rich, black dirt was not cloddy, not too wet. It would crumble in your bare hands. The day I got to the farm, the corn was not up. But when I left this week, I could mow it. To look at those green sprouts peeking up out of that rich earth is a beautiful sight.

Think about all the time and effort and money spent in getting the crop this far. Last fall, we put lime on some fields where the soil tests told us it was needed. We applied phosphate and potash at just the right amount to meet fertility needs. With GPS and accurate soil tests, we can apply the right amount in the right place. That’s precision farming.

We knifed into the soil “honey” from our hog barns. That is powerful fertilizer. Finally, anhydrous ammonia, our source of nitrogen, was put on the fields. We did all of that last fall. We won’t see any return on our investment until this fall.

When the corn gets up a foot high this spring, we will spray for weeds. With genetically engineered seed, we don’t use anywhere near the amount of weed spray that we did 30 years ago. The critics of GE crops are making a big mistake. GE allows us to dramatically reduce the amount of chemicals to grow a crop. We don’t use the energy. In days back, we would have to cultivate the growing crop twice. And, we would still have weeds and grass in the corn rows.

Farmers are better stewards of their land than they have ever been. We have technology that makes it possible. We value our land and livestock. That’s how we make our living.

Of course, there are exceptions, but I can’t imagine a farmer mistreating his animals. I love our pigs. They are beautiful – so healthy. They are gaining weight and growing faster than I have ever seen. Sometimes, I think it may be the feed. It is a balanced ration. Corn, soybean meal and distillers dried grain (DDG). DDG is the high protein feed left over after making ethanol out of corn. It has become a very popular and valuable livestock feed.

Watching the 2015 crop grow this summer will be exciting. I’m sure we will be praying for rain in July. It’s in God’s hands now.

John Block was Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 1981-1985, where he played a key role in the development of the 1985 Farm Bill.

John Block: Raisins

By John R. Block

The U.S. Supreme Court decides a lot of very serious, high-profile cases – gay marriage for example. However, recently, they heard one about raisins. Yes – raisins.

The Raisin Program dates back to the Great Depression of the 1930s. President Roosevelt cut the production of many farm products to reduce surplus and raise farm prices. My grandfather told me that they even killed baby pigs.

In the recent case, almost 80 years later, the government came to get raisins from the Marvin Horne farm in California. He said “no.” They fined him $700,000 and now they are in court. Under the Raisin Program, the annual crop is reviewed by the Raisin Administrative Committee. Then, the Department of Agriculture decides what percent of the farmer’s crop must be handed over to the government. The government can then give raisins to the School Lunch Program or maybe sell them and give the farmer some of the money.

Justice Breyer argued, “The government was not taking the raisins and giving the farmer nothing. He benefited from higher prices.”

Conservative Justices consider the Raisin Program to be an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. Justice Roberts complained, “You come up with the truck and you take their raisins – probably in the dark of night.”

Justice Kagan pointed out, “We think this is a ridiculous program, but the ridiculousness or sensibleness of a program is not for us to decide.”

The court verdict should be announced by July. Now, to set the record straight – we have had government production control programs for years and years. Most of those control programs have been eliminated, but not all. A few years ago, the “UglyRipe® tomato,” grown in Florida, was not allowed to be sold out of that state. OFW Law was asked by a company growing the UglyRipe® tomato to help them. The Tomato Marketing Order that they were under would not allow them to sell the UglyRipe® tomato in any other state – just Florida. I did work with the USDA and eventually they lifted the Order. I saw UglyRipe® tomatoes in the supermarket here in Virginia last week.

I am not a big supporter of these government control programs. Maybe they served a purpose in the Great Depression. That’s not today. We have moved beyond that. Let the free market work.

What would your reaction be if the government came and took some of your corn after you harvested it?

John Block was Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 1981-1985, where he played a key role in the development of the 1985 Farm Bill.

Hand Washing: A Simple Step

By Barbara J. Masters, D.V.M.

How many of you have ever sat in a public location, such as the airport, and watched the number of people that enter the restroom talking on their cell phone?  Creepy, huh?  Not nearly as creepy as the same number of people that exit a very short time later still talking on their cell phone.  I always question how they washed their hands.

According to the Center for Disease and Prevention (CDC), “Washing hands prevents illnesses and spread of infections to others.”  It is a simple step we can all take before, during, and after preparing food, before eating, after using the toilet or assisting a child use the toilet, after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing, after touching animals or animal food or animal waste, and after touching garbage.  Washing hands keeps them clean and prevents the spread of bacteria that can make people sick.

It is especially critical to wash your hands when preparing food to prevent the spread of common foodborne bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella.  To wash your hands, use soap and warm water and lather your hands for at least twenty seconds.  It is important to get the back of your hands, between fingers and under your nails.  If you are not certain how long twenty seconds is, hum “Happy Birthday” two times while washing.

If you are out on a picnic or do not have access to soap and water, then use of a hand sanitizer can be substituted.  If you must use a sanitizer, first wipe hands with a paper towel or a napkin to remove the visible dirt.  Then apply the sanitizer and rub hands together until the sanitizer dries.

The CDC has promotional materials that can be utilized to encourage hand washing at your work site or in schools.  Clean hands are a simple step we can all take to improve public health.

About Dr. Masters

Mixed in with the attorneys at OFW Law is the former USDA Food Safety Inspection Service’s (FSIS) Administrator, Dr. Barbara Masters.  Dr. Masters is a veterinarian who spent eighteen years with FSIS – the final three years as Acting Administrator and Administrator.  During her rise to the Administrator’s position, Dr. Masters served as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Field Operations.  While in these key leadership positions at FSIS, Dr. Masters’ primary focus was on the implementation of science-based policies for the protection of public health.

Food Defense Plans

By Barbara J. Masters, D.V.M.

One of the goals of the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s Strategic Plan is to “ensure that facilities implement safeguards and systems to protect food from contamination by people who might try to intentionally and maliciously harm consumers.”  The Agency has a FY 2015 target of 90% of all establishments having a functional food defense plan. Since 2006, annual surveys have been conducted to measure progress.  The largest establishments currently exceed the goal (97% have a functional plan) while the very small establishments are not yet at the target.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement measures to protect the food supply from intentional contamination.  A proposed rule to address hazards resulting from intentional contamination was issued on December 24, 2013.

Both FSIS and FDA have taken substantial measures to assist the food industry in the development of food defense plans.  The FSIS webpage includes a tool that an establishment can download to select the specific elements appropriate for their facility.  FDA maintains an on-line food defense plan builder free to all users.  Once a plan is documented, the establishment must implement the plan.  Steps to implementing a food defense plan include:

  • Testing the plan (e.g., check locked doors, take unannounced walks around the perimeter), and
  • Reviewing and maintaining the plan (review and update as needed).

Food defense plans should be tailored to the facility.  Small establishments do not need to make the plan overly burdensome.  For example, a plant that only employs family members would not need background checks on employees as a critical element.  However, this establishment could document the use of door locks and outdoor lighting at key locations in the facility.

Areas to be considered in a food defense plan are: outside security, inside security, personnel security measures and incident response security measures.

When I go visit any establishment, I am always asked to show my identification.  I am always escorted during the visit, and I see emergency plans posted at every facility.  These are all elements of a food defense program.  If these elements for secure food are already in place, it is logical that they could easily be documented and verified by the establishment.

I encourage those plants that are not currently maintaining a functional food defense plan to review the FSIS and FDA websites.  I challenge them to consider that they very likely already have all the elements in place for a food defense plan – the plan just needs to be documented.  By documenting the plan – the establishment is taking the necessary steps to ensure all team members are aware of the program and are taking steps to consistently implement it.

If by maintaining a functional food defense plan we can contribute to a safer and more secure food supply, then I am certain we are all in favor of meeting this objective.