As well, through our animal health activities, we have the authority to quarantine or destroy diseased livestock that may pose a threat to public health.

With respect to redefining danger, section 122(1) and the definition of danger, the present definition of danger means any existing or potential hazard or condition or any current or future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it before the hazard or condition can be corrected, or the activity altered, whether or not the injury or illness occurs immediately after exposure to the hazard, condition or activity and includes any exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, a disease or in damage ...[+++] to the reproductive system.

Either from eating it or being in the market where the animals were sick and someone who had the genetic susceptibility became sick and spread it to someone else.

medical needs are unmet in relation to that threat, which means that no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment is authorised in the Union or, despite the existence of such a method, the authorisation of a medicinal product would nonetheless be of major therapeutic advantage to those affected.

(ii)medical needs are unmet in relation to that threat, which means that no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment is authorised in the Union or, despite the existence of such a method, the authorisation of a medicinal product would nonetheless be of major therapeutic advantage to those affected.

Now, which is more important in that ethical code of yours your allegiance to the pharmaceutical company or your allegiance to the safety and better health of the individual patients who might be involved in a clinical trial and also possibly in the society in general in the years to come?