Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Hello there, everybody, and welcome to today's webinar brought to you by ADM. As you may be aware, this event is an independent dialogue linked to the upcoming UN Food Systems Summit. As such, we'll be diving into topics aligned with the system's 5 Action Track. Now these are: access to safe nutrition for all, sustainable consumption, nature-positive production, livelihood and equality, and resilience. My name is Katy Askew, and I am the editor of Food Navigator. Now the Food System Summit comes at an absolutely pivotal time for the history of the food sector. On the one hand, the industry has to provide affordable nutrition to a growing global population, and on the other, it needs to do so without exhausting the planet's finite boundaries. Now this is no small task, but it's what we'll be digging down into today. First off, I'm thrilled to welcome Greg Morris, who is President of ADM's Agricultural Services and Oilseeds business unit. Hi there, Greg.

Hey, Katy, how are you doing today?

I'm good. How are you?

I'm great.

Wonderful. Well, now ADM is one of the largest buyers of ag commodities in the world, and this places you in a unique position with both an opportunity, but also a responsibility to help drive food system transformation. How do you view ADM's role in creating the food system of tomorrow?

Well, it's a good question, and it's an interesting position that we find ourselves in. And first, thank you for hosting this event today and facilitating the dialogue. I'm really looking forward to it. At ADM, we talk about our purpose, which is to unlock the power of nature, to enrich the quality of life. And so when you think about the challenge of the inevitable population growth and evolving diets around the world, and as you say, with the environmental challenges associated with expanding crops and to meet that growing demand, we do find ourselves in kind of that sweet spot to try to be able to influence change in a positive direction. So as we think about global food systems in the future, I think it's important to recognize the benefit of the compounding effect of the full value chain when you get all the different actors within the value chain to participate in helping solve the problems of the future. Think about sustainable farming practices, which I'm sure we'll talk about; low-carbon intensity processing technologies that industries are adopting at a very fast pace; producing a much different carbon intensity product for customers and consumers. Today, we'll talk about food systems of the future. But I think it's interesting that it's food, feed, fuel and industrial products that are all looking at agriculture as an opportunity to help them in the future. And so when I think about ADM's role, I think about 2 things. One, it's about driving change and leveraging that long supply chain to really try to help exert influence on the producers on the front end of the supply chain, but also on the customers and consumers on the back end to try to create that demand pull for those changing practices across the entire supply chain. And if we do that right, then there's an opportunity to create new revenue streams for producers. There's an opportunity to reposition the carbon intensity of the grains and the products that get produced. There's an opportunity to really help influence the way that agriculture is viewed as part of the solution for the future. But I think what really resonates with, I'm sure, a lot of the other panelists today too and a lot of people in the industry is that the pace of change has to accelerate. And you think about 10 years ago, we talked about climate change as kind of the next generation's problems. And today, I think we'll all agree that it's pretty clear that we have to take action now. And the changes in innovation are happening extremely fast all around us. And so I feel like as a large global organization operating in that long supply chain, I think pushing change and innovation, but also the pace of change. We don't have forever. If you look at some of the significant commitments that have been made by countries and companies, we have to take action now to help influence what the future is going to look like. So I do think it's an interesting position that we find ourselves in, and it's exciting right now to be in agriculture.

I mean you talk about the need to accelerate change. As you look at your supply chain, are you already beginning to see the impact of climate change on agricultural production?

Well, certainly, it's hard to deny the weather patterns certainly have been odd. You look at the supply-side disruptions that we've had just in the last 6 months and the significant crops that have been damaged around the world as a result of that. Is it directly tied to climate change? Is it -- are they outlier events? Hard to know. But the fact is the weather patterns in the crop producing areas of the world, at least in the last few years have been challenging. And embedded in there there's opportunities. But certainly, we take our role pretty seriously, and we want to make sure that we have good diversification across our portfolio and business continuity. And not only do the weather events present challenges, but throw on a global pandemic in there too, and it creates a very complex set of variables to try to navigate day to day.

As sort of a bridge between your food producers at the ag side and then the food manufacturers and ultimately consumers, does ADM have sort of a unique opportunity to deliver collaboration that's needed across the value chain and help facilitate that acceleration?

Well, I mentioned earlier, it's about the build across the entire supply chain. And I think embedded in that is the requirement for partnerships and for collaboration. So I think one of the most important opportunities we have is that I'm proud that we've developed a trusted relationship with producers all around the world. And I don't think trust is something that you can take for granted today. And when we've been operating for over 100 years, and we have long-term relationships, we do have an opportunity to evolve that relationship into a new business partnership around sustainable farming practices, for example. And I mentioned new revenue streams earlier. Ultimately, the producer needs to be rewarded for the extra effort that they put out. So I think working with growers is a clear partnership opportunity for a company like ADM. I think when we think about our own Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, clear opportunity to partner with innovative companies in that space. And we've made some recent announcements about some of the things that we're doing to try to drive our own energy intensity down in our own locations. But I think partnerships can help you actually innovate and change and push the pace of change faster because you have to recognize that we can't do everything. We can't be an expert in everything. And so when you can look at areas of your supply chain where there might be better advanced technology out there or there might be a company or a start-up company or new technology that can help evolve that component of your business, I think those are all areas where partnerships become a pretty critical factor for us. And I think, again, it goes back to innovation. It's happening so fast, and there's so much opportunity out there. I think you just have to -- you have to pay more attention to the outside world than maybe we had to in the past because there's opportunities out there.

Fantastic. Well, on that note, I think it would be really great to bring in the rest of the panelists because one of the important messages that we're going to be hearing time and again is that no one actor or even one part of the supply chain can go it alone when it comes to developing a more sustainable food system. So I am thrilled to welcome our lineup of speakers today from across different parts of the value chain. First of all, we have Will Cannon, who's a farmer out in Iowa, and he's a proponent of some climate smart ag practices. We have crop expert, Sarah Carlson, who's an agronomist with Practical Farmers of Iowa. We have Margaret Henry, Director of Sustainable Agriculture at PepsiCo. And we have Debbie Reed, who is Executive Director of Ecosystem Services Markets Consortium. Thanks very much for joining us today, everybody. So I think it will be great to kick off the discussion. We heard there from Greg about how he views some of the biggest challenges that we're looking at with food system transformation. I think it'd be nice to get some different perspectives on this. So as we're looking at this problem, Will, how do you think -- what do you think the biggest challenges to developing a more sustainable system of food production are?

Well, I think from a farmer's perspective, a lot of the practices or the challenges we're going to need to implement all cost money. And so for a lot of farmers over the last several years, we've been in challenging economic times. Markets have been challenging. And so I think it's going to be being able to partner with our end users, ADM, and so on to find ways to be able to pay for some of these things. There are some practices that we can implement that don't really cost anything or may even save us money, but there's a lot of practices that are going to come with a cost. And so farming is like any other business, the first part of sustainability is being economically sustainable. And so we've got to figure out ways to be able to pay for some of these things in the bottom line on the farm.

Do you find that that's a conversation that some of your customers are more open to hearing today because they're looking at their own supply chains and wanting to drive sustainability there that they're sort of willing to discuss the economics of it?

Yes. I think there's some good discussions happening out there. I've been involved in some of them and there's more chatter. And even this meeting today is an example where I think everyone is trying to start to talk and figure out how we can collaborate together, which I think is really positive. You have some new businesses out there that are trying to create a whole new economic model, right, where they want to kind of be the middle man, if you will, on some of these different things. So I think there's a lot of businesses showing a lot of interest. Like everything, in farming, I think it gets really complicated really fast. So everyone is learning how challenging it might be to get there. But so far, I would say it's a good faith effort from most all the companies I've had an interaction with.

Margaret from PepsiCo, I think this would be an interesting time to bring you in and just get a little feel of how a large global corporation like PepsiCo is offering that support that's needed to make sort of the sustainable shift economically viable for the suppliers.

Absolutely. I mean I think what Will said was beautifully said. We know that some of these practices take significant financial investment on the farmer's behalf. And it may be that there's a quick payback period if you have really good technical assistance. But it still means that there is an upfront cost to some of these. And we, as PepsiCo, are in it for the long term. And we know that we need to help our farmers to transition if we want them to be in a more regenerative food system. And [indiscernible]

I'm afraid it looks like we've got some... [Technical Difficulty] Margaret, if you can hear me, I think we've got a few connection problems. So let's move along to Debbie. Margaret mentioned regenerative systems. So I think it would be helpful at that point to really talk about exactly what people mean by that. There isn't currently an industry agreed definition, but what are we talking about when we're talking about regenerative ag?

Yes, I think that's right. There is no agreed definition. But I think generally, people are referring to systems in which we are removing chemical inputs in some cases. We are removing inputs and really looking at the farm as a holistic system in which we utilize whatever we have, whether it is converting to no-till, for instance, so that the organic matter from previous crops is incorporated into the soil, where we're looking at the systems as a whole, if you will, rather than kind of one crop and one annual cycle, right? So it's really looking at the entire farming system as a system in which we're really trying to be regenerative, make sure the soil is regenerative, make sure the system is regenerative and that we're capturing as much water, for instance, in the soils as possible to improve soil water holding capacity. So it's -- I think it's a systematic holistic approach, if you will.

When you think about this systematic approach, is it about looking at practices that are taking place on one farm? Or is it looking at sort of the ecosystem of farms and how they interconnect, so there are ways that sort of neighboring farms can work together to really build out that sustainability, that regenerative picture?

I think it's a couple of things. It's not just looking at specific practices, but suites of practices that can be tailored and are applicable to any given production system in the region in which that producer is operating, right? So no one tool, no one technology, no one practice will work for all farms and production systems across the country or across the globe. So it's really being able to look at systems and suites of practices. But in terms of ecosystems, it's also looking at not just one outcome, not just carbon or greenhouse gases, but water quality, water quantity, biodiversity and being able to manage for all of those things and provide the tools and resources to producers so that they can do that in a way that meets their needs on the ground wherever they are farming and whatever system they're operating in. And then it is working across farms and farmers. Producers learn from each other, right? That's one of the tenets of how producers best learn. So they need information, but their ability to connect whether it is in their very local region or with others and learn from them is incredibly important way of helping to scale regenerative practices.

Sarah, is that sort of ability to connect, that ability to collaborate at an ag level something that you think is also really important to helping boost regenerative practices across the sector?

Right. So Practical Farmers of Iowa has been building on farmers learning from farmers since the '85 farm crisis that we had here in the Midwest. Because we know farmers learn the best from each other. And we know that farmers who participate more in local meetings or field days or even attending online chat rooms where conservation ideas are discussed implement more higher levels of conservation on their farm. And so those that are open to coming to meetings and learning from each other and sharing do end up implementing more conservation, which means greater resilience in extreme weather events. But there still are a number of middle adopter farmers who aren't coming to meetings, who aren't showing up to communities, where the soil health, regenerative ag practices are being discussed because, frankly, they're not being pushed to do that. And so they might be pulled a little bit by carbon markets or ecosystem service markets. But today, there isn't the push from, say, honestly, the supply chain for them to grow corn and soybeans really in any different way. And so this discussion today with ADM here, and we partner a lot with ADM, this discussion today really has to decide, are we going to push those middle adopter farmers to actually start coming to those events, start coming to those meetings and really show up and actually truly start to make a change? So I mean that's the really tough nut to crack. And so we've really got to figure out like how do we get there and how do we get started? So it takes the Pepsis and the ADMs saying to that farmer, "I'm going to buy corn and soybean differently from you. I'm going to buy it from you if you're in a cover crop, no-till, reduced tillage diversified system. I'm going to support you along that transition, but we got to get to it." Like if we want to really tackle the pace of this and the scale that's needed, like what Greg said at the beginning, we can't just like depend on the early adopters. We have to get them middle adopters to get started.

Okay, Greg. Let's pass that back over to you, because I think it brings true across many commodity supply chains is that question of how do you onboard people to these new systems? What's ADM's approach?

I think the challenge comes out in some of the comments that were made earlier. I mean if we're going to ask the producer to do something different that requires either more education or more work to go into their farm, there has to be a reward there. I mean their business people just like the rest of us. So we need to try to line up all the different incremental benefits, whether that could be improved insurance rates, whether it's preferred financing, whether it's the ability for companies like Pepsi or others to go to market with environmentally-friendly products, whether it's policymakers that can help evolve low-carbon fuel standards like in California that could create a demand pull for a lower carbon intensity product flowing through the system. Somehow we have to create the demand pull, but we also have to line up the various different financing opportunities. But I think it's also important to keep it simple for the producer, too. They don't need more administrative burden. They don't need more work beyond what we're asking them to do in terms of evolving their farming practices. And I think somehow we have to try to -- as an industry, we have to try to pull together the complexity of what we're talking about when you think about building through the supply chain and packaging it up in a manner so that the farmer can get his mind around what's actually happening and the value associated with what we're asking them to do. And I do think it's about buying grain differently in the future. And it is interesting, too. I don't think we should sit here and think that the producers haven't made significant progress over the years because they have. When you think about doubling the total production of corn, wheat and soybeans, doubling the yields per acre since the mid-'70s, fertilizer use on a per acre basis is down, think about over 100 million acres of no-till crops today in North America. Unfortunately, there's only about 15 million acres in -- and Sarah may correct me on this, but it's about 15 million acres that are under cover crops. So it's a drop in the bucket relative to the total acreage that's out there. And so I think to her point, there's a lot of room to grow in that space if we really want to advance some of those practices. But the producer has made significant progress over the last couple of decades, and they should get credit for that, too. This is just a continuation of evolving some of the great work that they've done to get us to where we are today, which is having the ability to feed a growing population around the world.

Well, that growing population is a really important point, right, because we don't just have to produce food in a way that's less environmentally damaging, we have to step up and intensify food production as well. Now, Will, my understanding is that as you build soil health, very slowly, you start to see gains in terms of resilience on farm, but also in terms of yields. Is that something that you see day to day? Or is it just a very long story to get there?

Well, with soil health and soil resiliency, it takes time. And so I think that's part of the difficulty for farmers is a lot of farming, a lot of modern farming, we're used to. We can buy a piece of technology, maybe a piece of equipment or fertilizer or whatever it may be, and they'll say if we spend x, we can expect y result, right? And so a lot of operations have become very accustomed to expecting immediate response or immediate return on investments. And the problem with some of the soil health things is it takes time for the biology to get working in the soil for things to start building up. And I don't think there's even an agreement on how slow or how quick some of those things can happen, right? I listen to a lot of podcasts when I'm out working. And there's some farmers that are claiming within 2 or 3 years, they're seeing significant measurable changes in the carbon in their soil, the organic matter in their soil. And there's others saying it takes much longer. And some of those may be the differences of one area, different soil types, different climate versus others, but some of it may be practices as well. So as we start getting into the soil, it gets incredibly complex. But I think the key is that it's going to take long-term partnerships to make it happen. The rule of thumb -- when I transitioned into no-till, the rule of thumb was it takes about 4 or 5 years to see your soils overcome that change from tillage to no-till. And that pretty well played out on my farm. And so that's kind of an example of a lot of these things are going to take multiple years. And so the challenge you'll run into is a farmer may have to make an investment on the front end or even maybe pay a little bit of a penalty in their yield on the front end before they start seeing the results on the back end. And so how do you help them bridge that gap or get to that point, right? How do you make a commitment that's long enough that they know if they stick with it, they'll get to the back end and maybe see some more results. And it becomes even more complicated when a lot of farmers are leasing their land, right? And so how do you start making an investment into a piece of land that you may rent on a year-by-year basis or 2- or 3-year basis? How do you make an investment into that land when you have no certainty you're going to see it to the other end of the result? So...

Margaret, how does PepsiCo approach this? Do you sort of go into longer-term contracts with farmers perhaps to give them that income security? What's the best way to approach this sort of need for longer-term approaches to the issue?

Well, I'd say it's really underpinning why we are doing this work because we see our company as needing to invest in the long term. And we want to have food to be able to utilize to produce those delicious snacks you so enjoy in the long term, not just today. And so that's why we're investing in our farmer base. And we really believe, just to tie a couple of the comments from other speakers together, that it's critical to work on, as Will started out with, the financials and to figure out what the farmers need to start trialing some of the more innovative practices, some of the more important practices, what Sarah touched on, which is the cultural aspect. We need farmers to be teaching farmers in their own areas. They're the best spokesperson. Pepsi is never going to tell you how to farm. But we are going to be there on the journey. We're going to try to help bring farmers together to continue to innovate and to continue to move their farm in the direction of these long-term benefits. And the third piece of that stool, which Sarah didn't due herself enough credit, but is really good technical assistance. And this is somewhat to Will's point around the length of time it takes before you hit a breakeven point or when you see the benefits of some of these better soil health practices on your farm. Our farm support system is not set up to help farmers with these kinds of long-term systems today as a default. That's not the way it was created. And so we do need new expertise and new technical assistance for farmers that are trying different things. I mean I grew up in a farm, and north side of the field and the south side of the field reacted differently. So you really need deep technical experience to do these practices well in a way that can help the farmers' profitability, that can help that long-term resilience. So that's what Pepsi is investing in is that 3-legged stool, the cultural, the technical and the financial assistance to help farming communities make a transition.

Sarah, I think that's a great point to move on to some of the really exciting innovations we're seeing in the ag tech space, which, frankly, is moving so fast, it's hard to keep up with. When we talk about regenerative agriculture, it almost sounds like going back to sort of pre-industrialization of the farming system with no-till and cover cropping and very traditional approaches. But at the same time, you also have ag tech with sort of AI and big data that's really helping to inform on farm choices a lot more now. What are the most exciting developments you're seeing at the moment?

Yes. There is a lot of exciting developments, a lot of new technologies and a lot of new businesses in this space, sometimes selling products to farmers. And so I think from Practical Farmer's perspective and the farmers who are members, we always want to really vet well those new technologies and see how do they perform on our farms. So if it's a new amendment to the soil, for example, that's going to result in x yield changes because it's driving better soil biological life, then we really need to test that on farm. And Will has been in a number of trials like that to really know like, is this paying off, because we need to make sure that we can get that return. And sometimes those things we can't evaluate in an annual cropping system, we actually need to stick with it for like a 10-year cycle. So there are a lot of new products, a lot of new technologies. One thing that I guess I'm most interested in right now are how drones could help us hyper apply inputs that we probably still will use on farm, chemical inputs, but at a much lower rate and allow us to reduce our total consumption of inputs and apply them to very specific areas of the field that might have an outbreak or we might have an issue with to sort of care for that field. So I think there are some other robotic technologies that would help us with weed control without using chemicals. And I think that is good. It is good for us to evaluate our use of chemicals and make sure we're stewarding the soil a bit better. But at the end of the day, some of our core things, which Debbie kind of mentioned this earlier, around the world, like the core tenets of regenerative sustainable ag is continuous living cover, having a living root in the ground all year round, which helps us control weeds, which helps us reduce erosion. And so yes, that's a farming practice from like 10,000 years ago. Just nature tells us that: have a living root in the ground all the time, reduce disturbance and have a bit more chaos in the system. Those are the concepts that nature teaches us. So more crops, more diversification. And so that's going to allow our systems to be resilient. And then we can layer on some of those technologies as we vet them more and see that they really pay off for us and they're really a benefit. But I'm always just a little cautious for the next big shiny object because at the end of the day, it's probably back to basics. And that may sound like old farming techniques, but it's really just farming in nature's image. And she tells us a lot of core concepts that we just have been ignoring for a long time. And if we go back to those, that would be a big start.

Debbie, do you agree it's back to basics? Sorry, Will, please.

Yes. I was just going to piggyback off Sarah and say I would agree. I think we -- especially as farmers, we get excited about the next shiny piece of tech. But I agree with Sarah that I think a lot of the regenerative space is really going to come from looking back in our past. And so a lot of the farmers that I respect and admire and that I listen to the most right now, a lot of them are actually going back and reading ag science books from the turn of the last century, the 1800s, the early 1900s, where before we had artificial fertilizers and other synthetic inputs. They were talking about how do we make the biology and the soil work for us. And that's really what we're talking about going back to. So it's -- I think in this regenerative space, a lot of things are actually going to be a back to the future is going to be the answer rather than necessarily more AI or more data on some of these things. I really think that's what's going to drive it. It's actually looking back at what are our grandparents, great grandparents, and so on, what they were doing on their farm.

Debbie, would you agree? Or do you think that there's sort of potential in drones and futuristic options as well?

I think it's both, and I do think that what we are seeing is a return back to systems. Sarah used the term payoffs. I think it's biodiversity, right? It's diversification of systems. It's diversification of crops and rotations. It really is looking at above- and below-ground biodiversity and what that brings back to the system. But I think technology can really help us do a couple of things. One, be more specific with the inputs as she pointed out, right; identify where there is something that needs to be addressed and instead of an entire operational approach, right, spraying, for instance, just doing it and very targeted. But the other thing is we really do need to equip farmers and ranchers with better information about what is working on their farm and ranch, what are the beneficial outcomes that are being seen, both for the perspective of the farmers and ranchers, but because the corporates need that as well. They are having to report what they have done and how much the impact they can claim associated with what is happening on the ground. So we really need to be able to quantify it and determine trends over time because some of the things that we might advocate for in one region or one system may not work in others. And we really need to better equip farmers and ranchers with that information because they have an annual system that they're working with. And one mistake is an annual mistake, right? So we -- that input, the information and then the output is incredibly important for everyone in this operation and the supply chain working together.

Great. I think that's a fantastic point because you mentioned that large corporations are going to be have to reporting on their impact. Now as we mentioned earlier, we don't currently even have a definition of what regenerative ag is. So while there might be a lot of good feeling, I mean, it sounds really positive, right? It's one of the few climate-positive discussions we've got going right now. But without a clear definition, I think that there is a sense of mistrust certainly from some quarters of the NGO space that regenerative ag could essentially be a way of justifying business as usual. So how can you get beyond that? Maybe, Greg, that's something you can weigh in on. How can you build this trust across all stakeholders?

Well, I think there's a couple of things that come to mind when I think about that. I mean certainly, public policy is going to play a role in helping to at least set direction and help industry respond with business cases. But I think regardless of where we land in terms of a definition, I think the important thing to recognize is there's no silver bullet to address climate change today. It's about everybody that has an opportunity to help make a positive influence to the extent that they can make progress in that. I think today, the world is in a position where everyone has to do something because there's no one part of the world, there is no one industry that can reverse the damage that's been done. But I think the interesting thing that's come out here is that supply chains of the future are going to be more complex. The data that has to accompany the grain is going to be more complex. What that data exactly is, is going to depend on how we land on a definition. But I think the important part to recognize is that technology needs to play a role to help streamline that data flow along the supply chain. And I do think also, as you go through that data collection process, because as a processor of agricultural raw materials, I'm going to need to know what's the carbon intensity associated with the farming practices to grow the grain or the oilseeds that I process eventually. So I'm going to have to embrace technology to be able to collect the data that's packaged in a manner that allows for that data to flow across that supply chain in a manner that doesn't introduce additional administrative burden on the producer, on the supply chain operator, on our customers. And I think that's an important piece to recognize. The data collection is going to be really important. And I think, don't underestimate the impact -- the educational opportunity that you have when you sit down with the producer to collect that data, too, understanding what they're already doing and the benefit associated with the downstream supply chain buyers of that grain or processors of that grain. The opportunities they have to influence, the characteristics of that grain through different farming practices that might open up new opportunities for ADM or for Pepsi or for other companies. So I think data collection, the education that goes along with that data collection and making sure that we leverage technology as a way to manage that more complex data set that's going to have to flow through the supply chain in the future, whether that's for accounting requirements, whether it's for individual company requirements, I think those are critically important. And what exact data is going to be required, still waiting to land the plan on that, but I think, directionally, it's going to be a more complex set of data than what we've traditionally had to manage in the past.

And what technologies do you think are coming onboard...

[indiscernible]

Sorry. Please go ahead.

Yes, if I could just add to that point. Yes, Greg, I think you raised a really critical point around the practicality of the data collection. And from the end of the stream where PepsiCo sits, I know it's extremely challenging to figure out what we can report really credibly. It's actually not as hard to figure out how we really help the farmers in the right journey. But that's with the right partners with all the things we've spoken to on this panel. But then how do we report that as a company in a really credible way is very much an evolving space. And we've landed on impact. We're not going to report against some certification or standard. We're going to report about the impacts. What really has this done to watershed health, to water quality? What really has this done for farm resilience, for carbon sequestration, reduction of climate emissions? What has it really done for biodiversity in a measurable way? But measuring takes a lot of data collection. And the last thing we want to do is make farmers into data collectors rather than farmers. They need to spend the majority of their time growing the crops the right way, not playing with different technologies. One of our farmers, when we were chatting with him about this, he said, "I don't know. I have 6 or 7 different systems I have to input all my data into. It's taking all my time. I just need to train. Thank goodness, my daughter is good at computers because she's trying to train me on how to do all this stuff. And I'm a lost cause. I have to farm. I have something to do with my day that's not working on a computer." And so finding that balance between the practicality and having enough data to prove that we are having some sort of positive impact is a huge struggle for the future. That's one of the ones that's really coming up, that's going to put a little bit of a barrier to progress if we can't solve it simply and if we can't cut through some of the competition that's happening out there about how to do it right now.

Okay. Well, of course, a farmer that supplies to PepsiCo might not just be supplying to PepsiCo. And if their customers need different data requirements, that adds a complexity at a farm level that's almost impossible to manage, I'm sure. Now we've obviously got a new -- a whole lot of new technologies coming onboard with blockchain. A lot of people are very excited about the opportunities there. So from your point of view, Margaret, does that really need to be translated into sort of an easy, simple way to use it on the ground and be a lot less about farmers sitting at computers? Is that a piece of the picture that's missing at the moment?

I can't comment specifically on blockchain itself. I think there's a lot of different efforts to harmonize data. There's a lot of different efforts to figure out how to streamline data collection. I have not seen one solution that makes me say, "Oh, that's the one." But more a lot of efforts in the right direction to reduce farmer bothering, more efforts towards increasing transparency of impacts. But it will take really all of us in the supply chain at every different level, continuing to keep our eye on what our end goal is and working with all of those who hold end companies like myself who impose those kinds of data collection restrictions, holding all of those who set the rules for us in the same dialogue so that we can have a conversation very practical with farmers, with all of those folks who hold us accountable about what it takes to get really good data, what is good enough and where the perfect may be holding back progress. And this holds across any farming system in the world. I know this is part of UN Food System dialogue. And I'll just say this isn't just large U.S. farmers. This is 20,000 smallholder potato farmers in India. This is many, many different oat farmers in Argentina. This is all across the world. It's a common challenge with no clear solutions.

I think perhaps the important thing to remember about the data as well is it's not just to prove the work that you're doing necessarily. It can be used to drive change, right? So if we think about, for instance, reducing on farm waste, data can be an excellent tool to enable farmers to reduce that waste, increase productivity and essentially build out farmer incomes that way. Greg, do you think that a more sort of holistic approach to data and the way it's leveraged needs to be taken to help support those kind of changes?

I think with regard to data, there's a few things. I think I go back to giving the farmer credit for the current farming practices as it relates to certain programs. And I know we're talking about food today, but if you look at the low carbon fuel standard in California where they take an average carbon intensity score of soybeans produced in the United States, there's an opportunity to pursue variable feedstock scoring programs where a more advanced producer that has a lower carbon intensity score could actually receive benefit through their supply chain by demonstrating that he's better than average. And so I think the data collection opportunity is an opportunity even for existing producers and supply chain operators to demonstrate to the world or to the country that they're operating better than average. And to the extent that we can do that with the right data set to accompany it to make sure that it's verifiable, I think that could be interesting to try to influence policy in the direction that can actually help drive change in a manner that's maybe easier to push in the producer community than some of the more significant changes that we've been talking about like cover crops and others. And in the end, we need all of it. But I do think there's an opportunity with the data collection even in the current environment to position certain producers in a more advantageous position. And I think that the technology space is one where I think partnerships and third-party innovation is really important. There's some really cool things happening in that space with a number of different start-ups and technology companies that have been able to become really well funded and operate outside of the legacy challenges of a big corporation like an ADM or a Pepsi or number of other companies. And so we're staying very close to a number of those organizations just to see where can we leverage their technology advancements to help us accelerate our ability to manage, as I described, just a more complex data set going forward.

Great. Now you mentioned sort of the importance of influencing policy. And I think within the context of the UN Food Systems Summit, this is obviously an important element of the discussion. Sarah, do you think that there needs to be -- do you think that regulators and policymakers need to listen more to producers as they're forming these policies? Because a lot of the existing policies are very established and farm system subsidies, for instance, sort of almost an untouchable policy lever there for many governments. So what's your view on how they need to evolve?

Yes. So like, for example, one specific example in the United States is that right now, we discount crop insurance policies for farmers for just growing commodities, not tied to any sort of practice changes that they're making on their farm, where we know that there would be less insurance paid out if a farming system was more resilient in extreme weather. And so it's actually a benefit to pay a farmer on what I would call a good driver discount, meaning they're using climate-smart practices tied to that crop insurance policy. And so subsidizing that kind of behavior would make more sense financially for the government and for the farmer in producing those commodities. So like that example of a good driver discount tied to crop insurance, it would be great, yes, if the policymakers could have that discussion with farmers who are showing that they're a better deal. They're a better -- they're a less risky deal for that government, for example. So that's just the United States example. But I can imagine that around the world, when governments are trying to make decisions on how to address greenhouse gas emissions, climate change issues, they're dealing with extreme weather events that are causing supply chain disruptions, we kind of make haste with our decisions, and we don't actually talk to farmers on the ground. And so it would be an obvious opportunity to chat with farm groups who are making their systems work and bringing products to market without -- bringing products to market even in the uncertainty of climate issues. And so those would be the groups to target. Those would be the groups to talk to, what are the practices they're using, and then how do we incent those practices to become the norm and normalize them.

Margaret, do you have a view on how sort of policy levers could be used as a spur for change in the agricultural sector?

Sure. I think Sarah touched on them pretty well. I might just add to it and say I think that one area that's certainly upcoming is around the commoditization of ecosystem service benefits, and is there a role in the policy arena for what counts for a carbon credit, for how farmers can make money off of these growing markets around the world for selling the benefits of the different practices that they do on the farm. And it's -- I'm sure many of you have heard this, it's a wild west out there right now, and there may be a role for some arbiter of that wild west to help to set some of those rules of the road so that farmers don't get pinched in the end. And so that those buyers like us can send a signal that's clear and that's simple and that helps to move the farming system in the right direction, rather than the competition that exists right now, which is, it does not seem to be in the benefit of anyone. But I think overall, when policymakers can look at the system and they can understand where their role is on bringing up the bottom or incentivizing the early movers, I think those are really critical. And some of the things that are happening in the EU right now are extremely interesting and I think it will be important to watch for other governments around the world when they're trying to think about agricultural systems and holding on to the best actors in the agricultural system today, some of whom have been doing it for a really long time, and how to encourage movement by others in the direction that will sustain that food system into the long term.

Yes, if I could add to that. I think also just public-private partnerships, really, that are working together to integrate and leverage what the private sector is doing with what the Federal Government is doing as well as state and local government. So we're a nonprofit public private partnership with 80 members across the ag supply chain and value chain, and we're really working to ensure that we are integrating what every -- either the Federal Government or state and local government is doing with what the private sector is doing. Because the private sector is investing millions in these operations and working with farmers and ranchers to reduce their footprint, right, their environmental footprint across carbon, water, biodiversity. And there are things that governments do and can continue doing and maybe do better to help leverage that private money. But really working pretty competitively so that we're not recreating the [ rail ]. We're not being redundant, but really taking advantage of the best that each of us in that supply chain, in those public-private partnerships have to offer and then learning from each other. That's how we're operating, and we are learning a lot. And I think more of that is essential so that we are moving as rapidly as we can across the supply chain to meet these critical needs right now.

Yes. And if I can jump in real quick. Yes, I agree with what they're saying that we need to try to maximize both private and public funds. I guess from a farmer's perspective, most of the farm groups in North America are -- would prefer a more private, more economic-driven model than a government model. To Sarah's point, I agree the RMA is a perfect spot to jump in. And I'll give the USDA and the Federal Government credit, the RMA has actually been one of the faster moving programs out there where they actually are willing to listen and have made significant changes in how the crop insurance works with some of these practices. But overall, the government will generally tend to move too slow on a lot of these things. I think private industry right now is moving a lot faster in trying to figure out ways to incentivize this. However, the one thing I think that would be important to Margaret's point is, I think, the Federal Government is going to need to kind of help maybe set some standards or some basics within this. As I thought about this conference we're having today, I think one of the biggest concerns I have right now is that we missed this opportunity in the private sector, and that sets us back 20 years. And so the example I thought of is if you go back to the early 2000s, the Chicago border trade or the Chicago Mercantile Exchange tried to start a carbon trading program, and it didn't work and it kind of gave the whole concept to black eye. And to be honest with you, it's almost 20 years later before we're seeing it come back around. And so my concern is I see a lot of people with -- a lot of businesses, excuse me, with their hearts probably in the right place, but there's a lot of farmers who are skeptical, right, because there is a business model behind that where they're trying to make money as they try to pass money on to farmers, too. And at the end of the day, how much of the -- if you're going to have some middleman or some different market forces in here that are trying to take profit as well, are we going to actually drive enough profit to the farm level to make significant changes? And if we screw that up, are we going to give this a black eye again and set this back literally 10 or 20 years. And that's -- a really big concern of mine right now is -- this could go really bad and give itself a really bad black eye with farmers.

And how do you think we need to prevent that from happening?

Well, like Margaret said, it's kind of the wild, wild west right now. So I could open up my inbox right now, and I know I've got at least 6 different companies asking me to sign up with their carbon program. And not a single one of them are going to count carbon the same way, are going to measure carbon the same way, are going to assume a practice has the same carbon benefit. So all of those things are all over the place. And then what are they going to pay me for that carbon credit? Every single one of them is in a different place on there right now. And then unfortunately, I have to sit and look at the economic viability of the company. And as a farmer, I'm beginning to hear feedback from some companies that they already can't pay. They're already starting to run low on capital and are not following through on their contracts. So as a farmer, if I'm going to invest tens of thousands of dollars, thinking there's an economic incentive and then that incentive doesn't show up, how likely am I to sign up for the next company or the next program that comes along behind that? So that's just a reality of integrity in the system and intentions to follow through.

And we've heard -- just to build on this really briefly, we've heard from farmers that they would prefer to be tied closer to the commodity purchasers of grain, for example, in those carbon programs. So when ADM and Pepsi, for example, are investing in programs that benefit farmers of the farm gate, there might not be a carbon sale, but it's maybe a cost share program or something, but it's tied to the grain that they're bringing to market. We've had farmers tell us that they're more interested in supporting those programs and participating in those programs because they know that it's tied to the commodity that they're bringing to market. Where a carbon market, who knows who's buying that carbon credit? And it might be a Pepsi through some other means, but it's been of interest more to farmers to participate with that supply chain that's actually tied to the commodity that they're bringing and have those companies investing in how they grow that corn and soybean crop, for example. So it's a good opportunity then for the ADMs and the Pepsis to continue to make those authentic investments in their supply chain.

Absolutely. I mean, Greg, is that an area that ADM is actively working in right now?

Yes, it's the same sort of feedback that we get from the producers that we work with, too. And I think it also opens up an opportunity to simplify, when you can tie different farming practices to the grain price that you're buying. I think, keep in mind also, it's when you sell a carbon credit to somebody outside of the industry or to somebody outside of your supply chain, you lose the ability to declare that, that gain is sustainably produced or is a lower carbon intensity. And so you missed the opportunity to take sustainable farming practices to produce lower carbon intensity feed products to be fed into an animal that has feed products that might help reduce the methane emissions that then could be marketed by a company as a more environmentally friendly product. And so I tend to agree that, that's an area that is an opportunity. And I think it goes back to the trust factor. I mean what Will just described with a number of different companies looking for their business, they're not companies that have been around as long and they don't have as long a relationship, they don't know the individuals. And so I think that trust piece is an opportunity for the grain companies to step up and take ownership of this opportunity to help the producers simplify the concept, to tie it to the grain commodity prices, and I think it's the right thing to do to get that compounding benefit through the entire supply chain. So it makes total sense to me. So I -- that's the direction that I tend to think that will have the biggest impact on the producers, the supply chain operators and our customers and on the environment.

Great. And you mentioned...

Sorry. If I could add, that's actually how ESMC is set up. We work only within the agricultural supply chain and value chain, and our buyers are all within agriculture. So we are linking the corporates on the one end who need to have these quantified outcomes and reports to the growers on the ground and linking them to the actual commodities produced, and trying to do it so that every company doesn't have to invest in the entire system themselves, and so that producers as well, the burden is lifted from them so that they have the tool of the technologies, the opportunities to participate in the system. And I do think more of that is necessary, right, where you're actually linking that value chain in a way that meets the needs of every one in the value chain. It's the only way we're going to scale. And as we've heard, scale is really what we need to create to have as much impact as we need right now.

Absolutely. Now, Greg, just to go back to something you mentioned, which was that by sort of being able to link that, you're able to deliver a communication and a marketing message that brands are interested in. So Margaret, are you increasingly seeing demand from consumers and the consumption side to be able to communicate that sustainability piece? Is it something people are really pushing for?

There's absolutely a rise in the interest around transparency and around knowing about food that people are eating, where it comes from, how it's grown, what the impacts are on communities, on the environment. That continues to be a rising interest. I think we've seen some really interesting rise of awareness in the past year with all the disruptions. Now I guess I have to say 1.5 years, with all the supply chain disruptions that have come with COVID. People are more and more aware of how global supply chains are. If it's food or if it's other things that they're buying, it's no longer as easy to just go get whatever you want off the shelf. There's more awareness of the fragility of the system. And with that comes an increased interest in how, where, what, why and just what's going on with my food? How does it impact my health? How does it impact which community it came from? So yes, that demand is absolutely rising for transparency and awareness around food and food systems. I don't think that it's easy to translate into what to do next. There's more than 365 different labels you can have if you go into a grocery store. I mean I work in sustainability at a big food company, and I don't know what they all mean, so how can you possibly expect the average consumer to really know how to use their purchasing power to incentivize the right next steps in the systems. And these systems are extraordinarily complex. So that's a difficulty and it's not one I've seen an easy solution to.

So if you're sort of looking at what's really driving this push towards sort of sustainable procurement and using procurement essentially as a tool to help build sustainability and sustainable food systems, do you see that as coming essentially from consumers? Or do consumers simply have an expectation, the large food company or any sized food company should take that as sort of an ethical responsibility and, therefore, the need to act is implicit?

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I mean yes, I think this is now table stakes. For any company that's selling goods to consumers, it's more and more just the norm, and it's expected that you have basic good practices. How you translate that into exactly what you're doing in incentivizing throughout your supply chain is not as clear. And that is really something that precompetitive forums are critical for, that understanding the system through dialogue with the actors in it is really, really important for. And when we look at it as Pepsi, we're not necessarily looking at it for this or that marketing campaign. For us, this is about the long-term success of our business, which relies on the long-term success of the food system. And so that's why we're looking at some of the things that we are and incentivizing the programs we are. They may be able to translate into end consumer benefits, but really, the core of it for us is that we're a part of the food system, and we need to make that system robust in the face of all of the challenges that are increasingly coming at it.

Great. And Greg, are you seeing this sustainability piece sort of across the board, something that your customers are talking about increasingly, the food manufacturers that you supply?

Yes. I would say over the last several years, there's been a few companies. And I'll put Pepsi in this category that have been leaders. And I would say more and more today, you see more companies stepping up and recognizing that they need to advance their agendas, too. And so I give credit to a number of companies, including Pepsi, for the leadership role they've taken over the last number of years. But we do see more. And I think somebody mentioned earlier, European customers. And we see the demand pull accelerating with some of our food companies in Europe, too, where traditional supply chain benefits that we've tried to provide in terms of transparency or sustainable farming practices haven't necessarily caught their attention. All of a sudden now, it starts to get some traction. And so we see Europe as an opportunity to create, again, that demand pull. We see more customers in the United States stepping up with their commitments and interests. And I think the educational -- the learning curve across the industry around sustainability is accelerating like I've never seen before. And that's with our customers, that's within our own company, that's within our industry. Everyone is trying to climb the learning curve as fast as possible to try to understand what it means for their portion of the supply chain and how do they engage in a manner that can allow for them to live up to the role that they play in that supply chain. So it's been very interesting for our organization to try to evolve that relationship with the producer and the origination capabilities of the past. Those capabilities need to evolve into the future. And having some grounding background or having agronomic knowledge to be able to have a different conversation with a producer becomes pretty important. So yes, we see it across the landscape of customers and, again, not just in the food industry, but if you look at a number of industrial markets, building materials in the future, you look at anybody that's traditionally petroleum products are looking at veg oil replacements, whether that's in tires, whether it's in asphalt applications, whether it's in renewable green diesel or biodiesel, the demand is significant across a number of different industries. And customers are asking a lot of different questions today than they were 2 years ago or 10 years ago, for sure.

Well, that's really interesting because I think we've got a great opportunity to ask Will and Sarah now. How quickly are you seeing this market pull or this increased interest feed through to you at a producer level? Is that an increasing conversation that you're having? Perhaps, Sarah, could you start as well?

Well, I definitely want Will's opinion on this because he would be selling commodities. But we are I would not say seeing from the supply chain a change in how we're buying core commodities, for example. And we really have to have that tough discussion. It's not easy because we need to complicate and add a bit more diversity in how we source grain if we want to benefit diversity on farms. So maybe we can't just only source corn from one region and only source wheat from another region. But those 2 things need to be sourced in the same region, which means our buyers like an ADM need to figure out how to do that, and that's not necessarily easy. That's one thought. But then the second thing is, right now, really just the sustainability wings of companies are investing in changes on the ground, either through cost shares or in ESMC or carbon markets. And we're not really seeing procurement actually make those changes. And that has been a struggle. And so if we want to skip there faster and probably spend less money total, we really need to have procurement figure out a way to source grain a bit differently and pay differently to a farmer that's bringing those practices on the farm. And then we need the companies like a Pepsi in an offtake contract having a little bit of a higher premium in an offtake contract for the grain that came to market through these core practices. See what I mean? So then that can be passed on to the consumer, right, who is asking for it and will pay for it in a certain amount of increase, right, not $5, but pennies. So I don't know, Will, if you've really seen a change in how commodities are being sold or purchased off your farm because of practices you've done, but I would think that, that would be a huge incentive for driving change very quickly.

Yes, I would agree with Sarah on that part. I'm seeing a few companies be very interested in changes in practices. But like Sarah said, it's all coming as an additional payment or some type of credit. It's not coming through the actual procurement of the grain itself. So it's all -- yes, kind of the right hand is buying the grain, and the left hand is making an extra payment. I know farmers are -- their ears are perked up, and everyone is paying a lot of attention. Being in a couple of different grower groups, all of them are discussing how should this look, what's the right benefit, all those things. So there's an awful lot of chatter, but I haven't seen anything in the procurement of the grain itself. But I think what Greg said about how their customers, their supplier -- purchasers are looking for more bio-based ingredients to be able to use in their different products, I think that's an interesting opportunity that could feed all the way down to the farm gate. Because I think to meet a lot of these regenerative concepts and to lower our footprint, it goes back to what Debbie said much earlier in the conversation, it's going to -- we have to have more diversity. And so my problem is, I'm in Central Iowa. When I sit down and look at my economics, corn and soybeans blow pretty much everything else out of the water. I would love to grow a wheat crop or a sorghum crop or some other things that could benefit my soil and let me add some different rotations and help deal with lead management issues and let me do water management and nutrient management issues. But when I sit down and I can grow $1,000 an acre on a corn crop right now or I could gross $350, $400 an acre on a wheat crop, I will literally be out of business within years if I make that decision to go with that wheat crop because all of my neighbors are going to go with the high cash flow crop, right? So it's going to be interesting. There are companies I've been in discussion with where they are starting to look at, can we bring some other crops that would traditionally be in other parts of the U.S. or Canada and can we actually move them into the corn belt and create more diversity? And they're thinking that, that's possible because of some of the renewable fuels things or needing other oils or other ingredients to go into different things. So I like Greg's point there. I think there's a very unique opportunity to add a lot of diversification at the farm level if we're willing to work that down through the revenue stream. And also just to add really quickly, the super low-hanging fruit is in livestock. If customers demand it tomorrow, that small grains and a more diverse feed ingredient was used in the production of their livestock meat, that would change the dynamics, the economics again at the farm gate overnight. So there's lots of opportunities in industrial uses. There's opportunities in how we're feeding our livestock to create a lot of diversity change really fast. So I liked hearing that from Greg.

Great stuff. Well, I'm afraid we are really beginning to run out of time here. I would like to sort of continue to push in on some of those points, but I'm afraid I have to give it over to the audience and let them have a say. So we're going to switch to the audience Q&A. Thank you, everyone, for submitting your questions and comments. Throughout the discussion, we've had quite a lot come in. So this first one comes in from [ Rayna ] . And it's about the European Green Deal. It says -- and I think maybe, Margaret, this would be best directed at you since you mentioned the EU. The question is, what do you think of the proposed measures of the EU within the Green Deal as it's so called? So presumably, that's also going to be -- I mean a lot of -- the Green Deal obviously has its critics, not least because it's failed to be joined up to the common agricultural policy and the outcomes there. So how do you think of the Green Deal? Is it going to be a spur for action?

I'll say that I think any time the government policy can help farmers in this transition and any time where those policymakers are bringing together the different parts of the supply chain, there can be a lot of positives that come out of it. I think this is a very complex deal, and there are some parts of it that are very interesting for agricultural food systems that may help to spur that progress. The devil will always be in the details in terms of what actually gets down to these farming communities and these farming systems. And I think that above all, there's, of course, a role for government to play. There's a role for the private sector to play. There's a role for civil society to play. And that the real tricky part is when we can all listen to each other and when we can think about the system and not just our own piece of it. So I think there's opportunity and there's challenges in all the different legislations. We're seeing this far beyond the EU, in individual countries, in blocks of countries that are coming out. And I'd say that it goes beyond just those ones that are obviously about agriculture, that are obviously about climate, because it's a really diverse system, and all the pieces are connected. If it's Sarah talking about the insurance markets and financial markets, if it's ecosystem markets, if it's climate change adaptation or if it's climate reduction of emissions, these things are all interlinked. And I think the more that we in the farming system and the food system can think about what our role is and how we interact with each other, we can try to incentivize the right kinds of actions.

Great. So the next question comes from Michael. It's actually...

[indiscernible] that part so did not to comment on specific parts of that deal in great detail.

Off the hook then. So the next question comes from Michael. It's actually a bit of a statement. It says the current data flow for inputs is a disaster. So let's turn into a question. Will, do you share that view? And what could be done to fix it?

Yes. That would be up to everybody's opinion, interpretation. The problem with data flow on the farm level right now is, let's be honest, the average age of the farmer is somewhere around 60, I think, nationally. And so some of the computers, the data technology, some of those things become difficult. You run into the complexities of every machinery manufacturer has their own computer system with their own data model with their own GPS. So if I'm John Deere, I have one system. If I'm Case, I have one system. If I'm AGCO, I have another system. And then there's 5 different aftermarket systems I can use. And then -- so you run into all these different systems. My input suppliers all have different technology systems. So each seed company has a different data modeling system they're using. Every end user, every ADM or other processor I sell stuff has a different data system. So I was sitting here in the back of my mind trying to calculate how many hours do I spend on paperwork and data management to fill into all these different systems. And it quickly turns into days and days, literally days and days I spend out of every year, trying to take the data out of this system, shove it into this system, convert it so that they can go into this other system. And so it's kind of the wild, wild west as well right now. And that's going to be a unique situation, right, because you need end users like ADM and Pepsi. They need to sync up how they want their data, right? But then they're also going to have to talk to what would be the farmers' input suppliers, which would be the machinery manufacturers and the fertilizer and seed inputs and get them to sync up their data as well, right, so that it streamlines through the farmer. And the farmer has no control over any of those things, being the smallest player at the table in all those situations. So everyone can describe it their own way, but it requires a tremendous amount of time and a tremendous amount of effort from the farmer to try to manage all that. You could easily have a data management person on your staff to try to help manage the inflow and outflow of everything that's going on.

Great -- well, not so great, actually. That's clearly quite a challenge and one that I think perhaps the industry has to sort of work together to try and solve as well. Is that something that could feed into these precompetitive discussions do you think, Greg?

Yes. I think -- I mean I can relate to the complexity of what Will just described. But I think the important part is if we don't take ownership of the challenges that have been described in this discussion today, then who is? And I think if we can piece together the right ability to aggregate those disparate data sets that Will described and keep in mind in our own organization with their own activities, you have a whole another layer of complexity within the data set, that ultimately our customers are going to want to have visibility into to know that what they're paying for is really what they're getting. And so I still go back to -- the technology has to advance to the point where it's able to ingest the data from all those different sources and package it up in a manner that is usable. And to Will's point, it's not about making it more complex. It's about taking the data sets that exist and somehow bringing it together. And that's -- it's a challenge. It's a challenge across the entire supply chain. But if we want to get it right, if we want to try to make an impact and allow for every step in the supply chain to be able to contribute to environmentally -- to a better environmental future, then we have to figure it out. So companies like ADM are deploying resources, whether that's capital, whether that's human resources, in a direction to try to tackle some of the challenges that Will described. And can we do more? Of course. But our time is our biggest enemy here. So we continue to recognize it as a challenge, and we want to be part of the solution.

Great. Well, I'm afraid we really are going to have to leave it there because we've run a little bit over. But I think it stands testament to how interesting you've all been. So thank you so much for joining us today and sharing your very different insights into a very complicated topic. So on behalf of myself and all of the viewers, thanks very much for a great discussion. And thank you all for joining in and tuning in. It's been great to have all of you listening and all of your great questions. I'm sure that we can feed these through to the speakers, and where appropriate, they can get back to you individually. So thank you very much, everybody. And with that, we'll say goodbye.