Day 295 - 06 Nov 96 - Page 32


     
     1        of products around the world with McDonald's, it seems a
     2        bit of an irresponsible assumption, if that indeed is what
     3        they did think at the time.
     4
     5        The admission which I read out earlier on about being
     6        prosecuted for sewage in the food preparation area at
     7        Southend.  Yes, obviously, that is something that has
     8        cropped up in at least two stores, Colchester and...  I
     9        cannot remember the other one.  Two other stores.  So it is
    10        such an outrageous breach of basic hygiene by any standard
    11        to continue producing food when there is sewage on the
    12        floor that it does cast doubt on McDonald's commitment to
    13        hygiene.
    14
    15        There is no doubt if one of their workers wanted to give
    16        out a leaflet about joining a union to somebody it might
    17        have been stopped immediately, which would have been top
    18        priority, a sackable offence, no doubt.  I think we had put
    19        in our pleadings about Hackney environmental health
    20        officers finding salmonella virus in the sewage outlets of
    21        the local McDonald's.  It was said when it came up in the
    22        case, I cannot remember exactly when, that that does not
    23        show anything, that is what you would expect obviously in
    24        sewage.  Obviously, that is just common sense, but you
    25        don't continue preparing food when sewage is present.
    26
    27        One thing is that we did hear about there being a national
    28        surveillance scheme for residues in meat, a MAFF scheme,
    29        and I have not got the reference for it.  But when we put
    30        it to Mr. Chambers, I think he said that they had come out
    31        positive, if you like, a couple of times, in that fairly
    32        unregular...  I can't remember, it was something like it
    33        had been done once a month, or two or three years or
    34        something, and they had come out positive twice with
    35        Midland Meat Packers, which would show quite a substantial
    36        indication of prevalence.  I mean, 'positive' is not that
    37        it exists, but it exists...  No, I think it was, it exists,
    38        they were found to contain pesticide residues, or something
    39        like that.
    40
    41        Anyway, I think that Dr. North basically said how the
    42        testing was totally inadequate again and yet it was still
    43        found despite that.  It may have been Dr. Long that was
    44        talking; he was talking about testing for pigs, I know,
    45        being totally inadequate.
    46
    47        That brings me on to my next point, really, almost my last
    48        documentary point, which is we disclosed documents from the
    49        US National Residue Programme 1993.  I cannot remember who
    50        we put these to now, and I cannot remember -- I think we
    51        put them to Dr. North when he was in the witness box, but
    52        the official national residue monitoring programme was
    53        identifying pesticide residues in cattle and chicken in the
    54        USA, and that was the major point.  I think with Dr. Long
    55        we also referred to the chart on the back of the MAVIS
    56        veterinary document which was also talking about residues
    57        and antibiotics being found, pesticide and antibiotic
    58        residues being found, in, for example, pigs; that kind of
    59        stuff.
    60

Prev Next Index