Day 081 - 31 Jan 95 - Page 13
1
2 Q. What does that mean, that if there is salmonella in 25
3 grammes, it must be rejected or what?
4 A. It is unsatisfactory.
5
6 Q. Then it does say that if it is present in 25 grammes it is
7 unacceptable, potentially hazardous, does it not?
8 A. Yes.
9
10 Q. And so on. I am not going to -----
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So that is, for your purposes, black or
13 white, really?
14 A. Yes.
15
16 MR. RAMPTON: Then, for example, for E.coli, if you found 10,000
17 E.colis, whatever they are called, in a gramme of cooked
18 meat, it would be unacceptable, is that right, and
19 potentially hazardous?
20 A. If it is greater than 10,000.
21
22 Q. Sorry, greater than 10,000, yes?
23 A. Yes.
24
25 Q. This may be in a sense to repeat some of the evidence you
26 have given already, is it necessary in considering food
27 safety in the context of this case for us to draw a
28 distinction between the amounts found in or the advisable
29 amounts, as it were, the recommended amounts, or standards
30 in cooked meats, on the one hand, and in raw, uncooked
31 meats -----
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Sorry, Mr. Rampton, do you mind just asking
34 if you could go through what the figures actually are on
35 the E.coli line? I know we have talked about powers to
36 before, so I make sure I have actually got it right and
37 I do not make a silly mistake on this.
38
39 MR. RAMPTON: Certainly, my Lord. Would your Lordship like to
40 do it? I have no objection.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is only satisfactory so far as E.coli is
43 concerned if there are less than 20, if there is a colony
44 of less than 20 per gramme; is that right?
45 A. Yes.
46
47 Q. I see, yes, it is "fairly satisfactory" if it is less than
48 100?
49 A. Between 20 and 100, yes.
50
51 Q. And then?
52 A. Actually, that is between 20 -----
53
54 Q. That is 10,000. Yes, I see.
55 A. Yes.
56
57 Q. And greater than 10,000?
58 A. Yes.
59
60 MR. RAMPTON: Greater than 10 is "unacceptable". Perhaps my
