From: Joe Hunt 

Here is one citation of the cost of a test for BSE, from an article in the
Wall Street Journal, 2003/12/26 - pg. A6 (by Susan Carey and Tim Burton)

"...Abbott (Abbott Laboratories), of North Chicago, Ill., and Bio-Rad
(Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.), Hercules, Calif. are the major publicly traded
companies in the testing industry, which in total generates a little more
than $100 million in annual sales, principally in Europe. These companies'
quick chemical test kits, which sell for $10 to $20 each, work much faster
than does the current system employed by the U.S. Agriculture
Department...Abbott licenses its test from Ireland's Enfer
Scientific..."

An overall estimate is provided in another article in the same issue, from
pg. A1 (by Scott Kilman, Steve Stecklow and Laurie McGinley)

"...Based on the European Union's experience, the cost of a
comprehensive mad-cow testing program can be quite high.  In the EU, all
cattle over the age of 30 months are tested before they enter the food
chain.

Bruno Oesch, chief executive of Prionics AG, a mad-cow testing firm in
Zurich, figures that it would cost the U.S. roughly $300 million to
implement a similar program..."

I've used the print edition for the citations, since the WSJ on-line
edition is by paid subscription only.

Joe

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:41:12 -0800, Randall Parker
 wrote:

>Geo,
>
>No I don't expect a cover-up. I expect that lots of cows will be tested and
the
>results of those tests will be made public. This one positive test was made
public
>rather quickly after the result came up positive, right?
>
> 
>
>What do each of those tests cost? Costs matter. Let me put some meat on this
argument
>with a starting guess on what a mad cow test might cost just to illustrate.
Suppose
>the test costs, say, $100 each. At 20,000 cattle tested per year that'd be $2
mil per
>year and maybe only one case is found in 10 years (it might take 20 years -
I'm just
>trying to do a scenario) and so that is $20 mil a case. That case might not
even
>cause any human cases even if the cow's muscle meat is sold to market. So is
would
>testing 100,000 a year be a cost effective way to save human lives? That'd be
$100
>mil. Would doing that even save any human lives? It is not clear. Compare that
to the
>dollar cost of saving human lives in cars. If the mad cow test is as expensive
as my
>guess (and I have no idea) then, no, it is not a cost effective way to
increase
>safety and reduce risk.
>
> 

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5