Day 081 - 31 Jan 95 - Page 25


     
     1        to say".  Would it be fair to say that if it is more spread
     2        around and there is a cooking break down, there is more
     3        possibility that somebody is likely to get a dose of food
     4        poisoning as a result of the bacteria?
     5        A.  Well, you require sufficient numbers in order to cause
     6        infection and if you are spreading the organisms amongst a
     7        larger quantity then you are starting from a lower base.
     8
     9   Q.   But more people will be exposed to the risk?
    10        A.  More people might be exposed to a lesser risk.
    11
    12   Q.   If there is a breakdown, not necessarily a total break
    13        down, but if the storage conditions are not quite right,
    14        there would be more burgers, or whatever -- burgers, for
    15        example -- with these bacteria present initially to be able
    16        to proliferate, to start to proliferate?
    17        A.  Yes, that is a possibility, yes.
    18
    19   Q.   Because if they are not in the burgers initially they
    20        cannot proliferate, can they?
    21        A.  No.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But is not Ms. Steel's point good to this
    24        extent, that some of the things are potentially hazardous
    25        if you can detect them at all, quite regardless of
    26        quantity, for instance, salmonella?
    27        A.  Yes.  Well, the reason why some of these are not -- the
    28        product is unsatisfactory if they are detected is that that
    29        indicates contamination of a faecal origin, and so you do
    30        not know what else is there.  So, if you detect salmonella,
    31        you do not want salmonella nor do you want any other form
    32        of contamination, so that is unacceptable.
    33
    34   MS. STEEL:   So, if the salmonella burden in chicken was being
    35        increased from one per cent in the live birds to 25 per
    36        cent in the meat, that is not something that would be
    37        considered to be hygienic?
    38        A.  I saw that statement; I was not sure what it referred
    39        to.
    40
    41   Q.   In terms of what, sorry?
    42        A.  Well, it was just a simple fact that one per cent was
    43        being increased to 25 per cent, but it did not indicate in
    44        what products.
    45
    46   Q.   So is that why you do not feel able to comment on that
    47        then?
    48        A.  Well, I cannot comment because I do not have any
    49        further information.
    50 
    51   Q.   Right.  If it was one per cent in the live birds and then 
    52        25 per cent in the meat, would you consider that to be 
    53        something that was good practice?
    54        A.  If meat is being bulked, then the inevitable
    55        consequence is that you do increase the numbers of items
    56        which have contamination.
    57
    58   Q.   Right.  So do you feel then that this is something that is
    59        inevitable with the present system of bulking the meat
    60        together?

Prev Next Index