From: "Robert Comer" 

> Never enough regulation? Who is is defining the public interest? You?
Look,
> regulations have costs. The costs can be made so high that the net effect
on the
> public is detrimental. Just sticking industry with a lot of costs may be
emotionally
> satisfying to you. But I see no point in doing so unless there is a
benefit
> commensurate with the costs.

I agree with Gene, trusting the food industry to regulate itself is a joke,
it never has been effective. (there's more problems with the industry than
mad cow disease.)  How could anyone think that it's okay to allow a downed
(immobile) cow to be slaughtered and put in the food chain *before* any
testing could be done as to why it was in that shape! If for no other
reason than publicity, even keeping the public safety out of the equation.

> Where's the big prion epidemic?

It apparently isn't easy to catch.

> Where's the threat? Even Prusiner can't say that the standard mad cow
prions (not the
> new variant prions that caused problems in the UK) can cause a disease in
humans.
> Read all my other posts on the subject. The more I read the less concerned
I became.
> The spontaneous CJD is a far bigger threat to humans in the United States
than
> cow-borne prions.

I haven't been able to find out anything about the prion shape of the case
here in the U.S., which in itself speaks volumes about how little rules
there are about disclosure of such things -- there's no way for us to make
an informed decision on if this case of mad cow is a problem or not and I
*really* don't like that.

> It makes more sense to treat prion disease as something that should have
research
> money spent to develop treatments rather than as something to pursue with
regulated
> expenditures by industry. The benefit would be greater if the same amount
of money
> was spent on research for treatments rather than on testing.

That's an easy one to answer -- here's a headline from a news story today:
"U.S. Loses 90 Percent of Beef Exports"

That's far more than enough reason to set up a much more far reaching
testing program.  (if only to reassure our trading partners)  Testing is a
quick fix for that...

As for research into prion disease itself, those 100's of millions aren't
going to touch this problem, and I'd even bet that we wont be able to do
anything about it until after we get a whole lot better on nano-tech stuff,
and 100's of billions isn't even going to touch that.

- Bob Comer



"Randall Parker"
 wrote in
message news:3fed380c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Gene McAloon wrote:
> > There is a scandal involved here, but it has nothing to do with a
cover-up.  The
> > scandal is that conservative administrations are ideologically opposed
to
> > government regulation of private industry.
>
> Blah Blah. Standard rant. I roll my eyes. Let us just have a knee-jerk
reaction.
>
> >Even where public health is involved,
> > it is expected that industry should regulate itself.  Industry regulates
itself
> > minimally on a cost/benefit basis. Therefore there is never enough
regulation to
> > satisfy the public interest.
>
> Never enough regulation? Who is is defining the public interest? You?
Look,
> regulations have costs. The costs can be made so high that the net effect
on the
> public is detrimental. Just sticking industry with a lot of costs may be
emotionally
> satisfying to you. But I see no point in doing so unless there is a
benefit
> commensurate with the costs.
>
> Where's the big prion epidemic? One case per million happens and those
cases are
> viewed as spontaneous and caused by human proteins randomly changing into
a disease
> state. What is the Bush Administration supposed to do, regulate Brownian
Motion?
>
> >Even when meat processing plants or slaughter
> > houses are repeatedly cited for violations on the basis of what little
> > government inspection does take place, the fines if imposed at all are
minimal
> > and prosecutions rare. All this has been the story since the Reagan
years.
>
> Gene,
>
> Where's the threat? Even Prusiner can't say that the standard mad cow
prions (not the
> new variant prions that caused problems in the UK) can cause a disease in
humans.
> Read all my other posts on the subject. The more I read the less concerned
I became.
> The spontaneous CJD is a far bigger threat to humans in the United States
than
> cow-borne prions. Prions themselves are such a small threat that they are
scarcely
> worth talking about.
>
> It makes more sense to treat prion disease as something that should have
research
> money spent to develop treatments rather than as something to pursue with
regulated
> expenditures by industry. The benefit would be greater if the same amount
of money
> was spent on research for treatments rather than on testing.
>

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