Day 295 - 06 Nov 96 - Page 17


     
     1        tested to find more than 10 million bacteria per gram would
     2        still be used by McKeys for McDonald's, despite what he had
     3        said in his statement.
     4
     5   MR JUSTICE BELL:  I got some help about that, did I not, or what
     6        might be some help, from the sheet which was handed in when
     7        Dr. Professor Jackson was giving evidence?  Was that
     8        European Community, where they said that the term
     9        'unsatisfactory meat' -- I have just got a vague
    10        recollection -- was used in a foot note, and that meant
    11        'was not rejecting the meat, but re-check your
    12        procedures', or whatever it was, 'to try and ensure that
    13        you are all right.'  Am I right?
    14
    15   MR. MORRIS:   There is no other category, is there?   I mean,
    16        what they were saying is they would only reject a
    17        consignment if it looked or smelled bad; that is,
    18        effectively, what he was saying.  So it is clear they do
    19        not have any scientifically based testing method for
    20        rejecting meat supplies, which is grossly irresponsible.
    21        Not only is it grossly irresponsible, it is doubly
    22        irresponsible that they portray their testing methods as
    23        scientific and as a guarantee, almost, to the customer-----
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  They did reject it if certain scientific
    26        tests failed.
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:   The E.Coli, I think, is the only scientific test,
    29        which, as we have heard, could not find it virtually
    30        because it was so inadequate.  It was set up, basically,
    31        not to find it, even though they found it twice.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Did they not reject if it had a loading of
    34        above certain numbers?
    35
    36   MR. MORRIS:   No, no.  He said that it has already gone through.
    37
    38   MR JUSTICE BELL:  You have got your point that they did not
    39        reject it if it was unsatisfactory, which was a certain
    40        loading, and that is why I raised the recollection I have
    41        got of the document which Professor Jackson referred to.
    42        But if it got to other levels on bacteriological-----
    43
    44   MR. MORRIS:   The point was, it had already gone through, it had
    45        gone through 24 hours before they got the results; that was
    46        the point.  He said if it smelled off or looked off, then
    47        they would reject it.  Although we did not have any
    48        evidence on that, apart from what he said.  Obviously, we
    49        could strain ourselves to see how McDonald's might be
    50        acting credibly if we really tried, but I don't think the
    51        evidence supports them in any way.  Although it might
    52        satisfy a negligence action, they can show they are doing
    53        some routine procedures, but it is no indication of any
    54        effective barrier to the contamination being in the final
    55        product, which is what we are talking about today.
    56
    57        So the E.Coli on that same page, page 53, it says that if
    58        they did find E.Coli they would reject the batch, obviously
    59        because of the sensitivity of what happened at Preston.
    60        However, while they are waiting for the test results

Prev Next Index