Day 295 - 06 Nov 96 - Page 35


     
     1        investigated, or if somebody had been positively diagnosed
     2        as having food poisoning, because of, for example, a stool
     3        test.  He said that, legally, they had to investigate that,
     4        and that was why they did it.
     5
     6        The other point is, running from, on the same day, about
     7        page 21 to page 25, there are the various incidents of
     8        prosecutions of McDonald's for undercooking products:  the
     9        undercooked quarterpounder at Tottenham Court Road in 1992;
    10        there are also the ones that have been admitted in Kingston
    11        in 1991, Shrewsbury in 1994, Sutton in 1990.  He also
    12        referred to the undercooking of Chicken McNuggetts in
    13        Burnley.  I don't think he gives a date for that.  That is
    14        at the top of page 22.  He said the cause of the
    15        undercooking in Burnley was to do with the timing of the
    16        computer and two vats of Chicken McNuggetts put in at
    17        different times and one being removed at the wrong time.
    18        I think that that was pretty similar to the incident in
    19        Shrewsbury, what they decided was the cause of that
    20        incident.
    21
    22        Anyway, I think it is worth reading through that section.
    23        He said about the Tottenham Court Road one, the undercooked
    24        burger, which was the case heard at Wells Street
    25        Magistrates' Court, he said that there was an investigation
    26        into that and there was no positive conclusion.  Obviously,
    27        that has implications -- sorry, he said they could not say
    28        what had caused it.  Obviously, that has implications in
    29        terms of it happening again.  The reality is that all of
    30        these undercooking incidents could happen in any store any
    31        time when there is pressure on the workers, you know, to
    32        get things done in a speedy fashion, which, as we know, is
    33        every day.
    34
    35        It is said in those pages that the ones that McDonald's
    36        were acquitted of, it was because of due diligence that
    37        they were acquitted, not because -- well, it was accepted
    38        that the food products were undercooked, which is the
    39        important matter for this case.  I think that that is all
    40        that I wanted to bring up.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Thank you.
    43
    44   MR. MORRIS:   I am just checking the pleadings, in case there is
    45        some important matter which we have missed out.  I do not
    46        think so.  (Pause)
    47
    48        The Furazoldone and Avoparcin matters were put into the
    49        pleadings on -- we applied on 17th January 1996, and they
    50        were incorporated into the pleadings; not that the
    51        pleadings are central to this issue.
    52
    53        I think much of the same arguments that we have given on
    54        previous sections apply to this section and probably apply
    55        to all the sections in terms that McDonald's recognise --
    56        have had to recognise -- that the risk of food poisoning is
    57        a serious one, and put what they believe are effective
    58        systems into place, and policies which they say deal with
    59        that very real risk.  So that, to us, is only a recognition
    60        that it is not -- for example, there is a risk that the

Prev Next Index