From: Randall Parker 

Geo. wrote:

> "Randall Parker"
 wrote
> in message news:3fecaaa5{at}w3.nls.net...
>>This one positive test was made public
>>rather quickly after the result came up positive, right?
>
> No, it was made public after a reporter got film and made it public.

Really? How could there have been film on this particular cow stumbling? That seems
exceedingly unlikely.

>>What do each of those tests cost? Costs matter.
>
>
> What is it worth to you to take all your competitors business away?

But I don't now see a large number of US consumers looking for tested cow meat. If
there were some cattle rancher could right now start testing every cow at the time of
slaughter to sell certified safe meat.

>>Let us put cost per life saved in context with some numbers from
>
> regulatory studies:
>
> Oh give me a break Randall, you can't even touch raw chicken and then not
> wash your hands,

Geez, I've been careless about it for years and haven't gotten sick yet.

But salmonella is a different disease. I'm arguing against the cost-effectiveness of
mad cow testing. Whether salmonella tests are worthwhile is a different debate.

 >they don't give a shit about public well being or quality
> of the food supply, all they care about is the bottom line and how much they
> can NOT do in order to make a few extra bucks. It could cost 1/10th what it
> costs to test and they still wouldn't do it unless forced into it.

Because the public at large is not clamoring for safer food.

>
> Geo.
>
>

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