Day 107 - 24 Mar 95 - Page 41


     
     1        and say the threshold for showing illness was some point
     2        less.
     3
     4   MS. STEEL:   If there are temperature fluctuations on a grill,
     5        is that something that could affect the dose?
     6        A.  It would certainly or could affect the kill rate of the
     7        bacteria within the product on the grill.
     8
     9   Q.   But in terms of comparing, I do not know, say, 10 different
    10        burgers, or something like that, I suppose you would have
    11        to start with exactly the same dose in the first
    12        place -- if they all started with the same bacterial
    13        contamination level, would temperature fluctuations within
    14        the grill have any effect on what numbers survived?
    15        A.  Yes, indeed.  If the heat was not uniform across the
    16        whole surface and was lower in some areas than others, if
    17        you then assumed that the lower temperature was below the
    18        threshold for killing the bacteria, then, yes, some would
    19        survive in some of those burgers, whereas others would come
    20        out with sufficient destruction.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do not strain to carry on for fear of just
    23        missing a point, because if you come back on the next
    24        occasion and say:  "I am sorry, I completely forgot to ask
    25        this", I am not going to stop you bringing it in.
    26
    27   MS. STEEL:  Right, no.  There were a couple of bits I am not
    28        sure about asking.  (To the witness):  Could you give an
    29        example of how it can be that visual standards do not
    30        correlate with microbiological standards or are inversely
    31        correlated, how that could come about?
    32        A.  I use one which graphically illustrates that concept of
    33        the experience in the Falkland War where the field kitchens
    34        for the British Army were actually on board the Atlantic
    35        conveyor when it was sunk, and the field corps had to rely
    36        on temporary kitchen facilities which ended up being a
    37        tinned roof, sheep sheering shed which had until recently
    38        had sheep within it.
    39
    40        To make cooking equipment, they salvaged a number of items
    41        off the refuse tip from Port Stanley and assembled some
    42        sort of an operation.  Having set that up after the
    43        Argentinians surrendered and their officers deserted them,
    44        left 10,000 men to be fed by the British Army.
    45
    46        So, enormous numbers of men were fed over quite a long
    47        period from a premises with equipment which, from a
    48        superficial observation would have said were wholly
    49        unhygienic.  They would not have passed any muster by way
    50        of inspection.  Yet, when the health monitoring records 
    51        came through, not one single case of food poisoning arose 
    52        from that whole episode, despite extremely adverse 
    53        circumstances.  In that sense, a dirty, awful operation by,
    54        if you like, superficial standards, was by definition
    55        hygienic.
    56
    57        Now, by contrast the survey I did for the Consumers'
    58        Association rested on looking at the correlation between a
    59        microbiological standard of cooked meats and visible
    60        appearance which is often cited as "hygiene".  I found

Prev Next Index