The evidence on that is equivocal. In the United States, there was a kind of candy-coated Food and Drugs Administration research that suggested that would be significant quality adjusted life years—in the hundreds of millions—for their population, if indeed that were true. But looking more into European and United States studies, it did suggest that—well, firstly, the research is difficult to draw a conclusion from because with such a high dropout rate. That in itself, I think, informs the decision—it's, like, probably half of the people who went on through clinical trials to low-nicotine cigarettes actually dropped out. So you can pretty much say, I think, for them, if they continue to smoke—and most of them did—that they weren't prepared to continue with a low-nicotine product. For the rest of them, there is clear evidence that carbon monoxide exposure increased because of the compensatory smoking. If one isn't getting nicotine through one cigarette and needs two to satisfy the craving, then that's going to cause more harm than good. There's enough evidence, I think, that exists already for concern about this, for caution around this, and I would encourage the Health Committee to make sure that they get the best advice that they can from the ministry about what they have looked at, because there is definitely, I think, an equivocal evidence base right now.