Day 105 - 16 Mar 95 - Page 54
1 10,000,000 we can argue about that outside of today --
2 would you say the 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 was a responsible
3 rejection figure?
4 A. Yes, from McKey's point of view.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Either of them would be?
7 A. Yes. McKey's require 75 per cent, as I recall it, of
8 their deliveries to be within the acceptable range. That
9 means that 25 per cent can be pushing what we have already
10 talked about is the boundary in the broad band of
11 acceptability. So, I would say that McKey's specifications
12 are absolutely responsible. In terms of health, because
13 the health check is for the E.coli, the Total Viable Count
14 is a matter of shelf-life and keeping quality.
15
16 MR. MORRIS: Would you think 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 would be
17 the most effective cut-off point for acceptance of beef?
18 Your preference?
19 A. If the meat is satisfactory for the product and within
20 the range specified from a health point of view, I am
21 perfectly satisfied with it. I am keeping the conversation
22 to healthy meat which is safe to eat. There is a broad
23 range of Total Viable Counts which is acceptable from a
24 safety point of view. McDonald's will choose from a
25 quality point of view which band of acceptability is
26 satisfactory to them. There is no legal standard. There
27 is nothing absolute in this context.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Are you saying the TVC or TCC is not an
30 indicator for health reasons? I can see that that is an
31 indicator for shelf-life or keeping quality, as you say,
32 but are you saying it is not used as a broad indicator for
33 health reasons as well?
34 A. In my opinion, it is not because pathogens do not
35 survive particularly well in the presence of spoilage
36 organisms, and there is no objective information about what
37 pathogens may or may not be present. There is a complex
38 pattern of growth of micro-organisms on meat.
39
40 MR. MORRIS: So, for example, when you look at those swab tests
41 then there is no cause for complacency if they find 60,000
42 bacterial count, is there, because that is no indication
43 that the meat is in good condition either by your
44 definition?
45 A. I am talking, strictly speaking, about the knowledge of
46 pathogens which may or may not be present on the basis of
47 Total Viable Count. The Total Viability Count indicates
48 the age of the meat, the general hygiene conditions under
49 which it has been produced and its likely shelf-life.
50
51 Q. What I am saying is, previously to testing for E.coli, yes,
52 Jarretts did not test for any specific pathogenic bacteria,
53 did it?
54 A. No.
55
56 Q. Right, so are you saying they have been completely
57 irresponsible by not testing specifically for other
58 bacteria that have health implications?
59 A. I am not saying that at all because the law is set out
60 with the objective of producing safe meat. So, the first
