 I thought I was looking at the same slides from this morning and you don't need to go through that again. So I just have organized just a couple of simple slides to outline what at least a couple of the people asking us questions today suggested. And I have to say I'm not sure why these red lines ended up in this presentation or they don't mean anything other than, do you know? You're not the projection one. Go to projection? Yeah. Here you are. Yeah, right. I should. It's better? There you go. Red lines are better. They're not better. So the kinds of challenges that Andres and say his colleagues would face and we've talked about is how do you separate the effects of yogurt and dairy since they are a component of an entire diet? I mean it's a terrible challenge but it certainly can be met and we can acquire more evidence to help us discern within a food or dietary pattern if there are elements of that better quality diet that appear to be impacting a specific health outcome better or more clearly. And then you have the likelihood that where you find yogurt or dairy foods are impactful. How much of that impact is dependent upon some of their component of the diet? Whole grains, nuts, tea. I don't know what they are but we ought to again with the kinds of databases we now have available if the commitment were there to begin to tease apart some of these or identify these what I would call interactions which then would have to be considered. An example, it may not be as effective to say increase your dairy product intake without recognizing that perhaps whole grains are somehow contribute to the value of the dairy food. That's just a theoretical example and we would need to try to figure that out if we're going to plug numbers into these models. And then you run into the issue of I can show you data that weight is improved in people who consume dairy products and then specifically yogurt. But when you begin to build the model what is then the interaction between those benefits of improving weight with cancer risk, diabetes risk, the debate now about healthy weight in this country, I mean how much of a benefit is good? Is there a threshold where the benefit in terms of weight is not as good? Because as you know we've seen data coming from our government that says being thin is not necessarily always the best outcome and we need not get caught in that horrible discussion but that's the reality of the kinds of teasing a part of the interaction of the health outcome with other health outcomes. But again there probably is data available that would begin to define where these interactions or the threshold of these interactions are and we could understand them. And indeed it may be good to know that your risk of colon cancer has been reduced by eating dairy foods, yogurt, but for some people has this really improved their perception of an improved quality of life? It may be neutral. On the other hand it could be very positive. They may say I feel better. I work better. And how do we gather that kind of information which is social data and not as precise health outcomes type data? And how are adverse effects factored into the calculation? Certainly when you're dealing with a drug or a device that can become I won't say easy but relative to this challenge it's easy. You do a clinical trial with a drug or a device, some intervention in a hospital system and it's set up to gather enough information obviously that you know if something not only good happened but if something bad happened. And do you, would it become possible to use the available data? I don't have an answer but I think from what I know the expanse of the literature and how it's expanding almost like the universe now we may be able to actually do some modeling where instead of yogurt you put in more low-fat milk to see if that has an impact that you need to consider. Is it, does it then become more important to make sure you have that one serving of yogurt per day as opposed to a second or third serving of a low-fat milk? I don't know the answer but those are the kinds of issues that would need to be addressed. And by a quarrel to it then can you begin to estimate the cost benefit of a single container of yogurt versus a scoop of ice cream or a glass of milk, a chunk of cheese. Personally I don't want to have to give up ice cream to get my yogurt. So the question to me is why is it critical to identify these relative values? One nutrient or food over another? I think there's a danger there because we begin to head back to the way we have been describing healthy eating in quotes in the past. This is good, this is bad. We need to try to use the kinds of skill sets that are available in sophisticated organizations like Andres and Argentina to move in a positive direction and try to pick up the balance of if you will move towards these elements of a diet we don't have to talk about not eating these things. I'm intrigued by the possibility that as people move towards healthier diets the things that we have spent decades trying to tell the populace not to eat become less of an issue because they won't eat them. We're going to learn a lesson over the next couple of years and I think it's going to be not necessarily mentioned but the need to do it is going to be evident in this anticipated report from the IOM on the harms and benefits of population-wide certain reduction. A piece of the understanding that had never really been brought into this debate, lower sodium versus no restriction, is a body of neuroscience that's been out there for 80 years and I suspect the same thing applies as it does to sodium to some of the key nutrient components of foods that are thought to be important to a healthy diet. What the neuroscience of sodium has identified are very sophisticated neural networks that take in signals from the periphery, most of them from the gut, some of them from the kidney, that tell the brain I need more sodium to maintain my volume to perfuse the organ optimally. When I hit that point I tend not to have any more during the day so that when you really look at sodium intake worldwide it follows a very, very tight normal distribution. People say there are these countries that eat a tremendous amount of salt and there are those who don't have very much and they're healthy but when you go and try to find them you can't find them, they're all distributed within a very tight and it speaks to the notion that it's probably true for many other nutrients or macronutrients. Evolution would not have allowed us to depend upon the vagaries of the foods that are available today to dictate what your intake is of essential nutrients. You would have signals going to the brain you're not aware of but your computer is monitoring minute by minute that dictate, you'll reach, you'll go for things. Unfortunately that type of biological data, very sophisticated neuroscience data is being used by some of the experts out there to talk about food addiction. This is not food addiction, it's the brain defining necessity and you go for it within some limits. So we're not going to answer the question today but I think the audience in participating with Anders and I can come up with some idea, is it critical to really get more and more granular, more and more specific about which food, which nutrient? Is it important to understand in greater detail the differential impact on multiple health outcomes? How does this affect young people, gestational people or gestational situations versus the elderly, women versus men, Africa versus North America where there are different ethnicities? And is it even possible for nutrition research to answer these challenges and questions? And can we at least come up with some new thinking about the best approach to try to wed these skills that particularly technology allows us to do a much better job of calling through information, feeding it into computers and coming up with defensible numbers? And how do we do that? So the last point is convincing society, how do we do a better job of helping people understand what the potential is here? Is it important? Is it more important within certain groups? And can people understand that this may actually occur at a fairly quick rate? In other words, as opposed to some things that society could do to improve longevity and health and wellness, some of these impacts could be identified and experienced within the society quickly. And is it always feasible? Are there settings in which talking about this is not going to help a society, a subset of society? There was an important comment that you could put economic status as a substitute for dairy foods on my slides and you would get the same, I have no debate with that. And then how do we factor in these choices against other things society is considering like economics, the cost of the food supply, the environmental impact of acquiring what we think are these better foods. So I guess we can take questions and see where we're at.