Day 295 - 06 Nov 96 - Page 35
1 investigated, or if somebody had been positively diagnosed
2 as having food poisoning, because of, for example, a stool
3 test. He said that, legally, they had to investigate that,
4 and that was why they did it.
5
6 The other point is, running from, on the same day, about
7 page 21 to page 25, there are the various incidents of
8 prosecutions of McDonald's for undercooking products: the
9 undercooked quarterpounder at Tottenham Court Road in 1992;
10 there are also the ones that have been admitted in Kingston
11 in 1991, Shrewsbury in 1994, Sutton in 1990. He also
12 referred to the undercooking of Chicken McNuggetts in
13 Burnley. I don't think he gives a date for that. That is
14 at the top of page 22. He said the cause of the
15 undercooking in Burnley was to do with the timing of the
16 computer and two vats of Chicken McNuggetts put in at
17 different times and one being removed at the wrong time.
18 I think that that was pretty similar to the incident in
19 Shrewsbury, what they decided was the cause of that
20 incident.
21
22 Anyway, I think it is worth reading through that section.
23 He said about the Tottenham Court Road one, the undercooked
24 burger, which was the case heard at Wells Street
25 Magistrates' Court, he said that there was an investigation
26 into that and there was no positive conclusion. Obviously,
27 that has implications -- sorry, he said they could not say
28 what had caused it. Obviously, that has implications in
29 terms of it happening again. The reality is that all of
30 these undercooking incidents could happen in any store any
31 time when there is pressure on the workers, you know, to
32 get things done in a speedy fashion, which, as we know, is
33 every day.
34
35 It is said in those pages that the ones that McDonald's
36 were acquitted of, it was because of due diligence that
37 they were acquitted, not because -- well, it was accepted
38 that the food products were undercooked, which is the
39 important matter for this case. I think that that is all
40 that I wanted to bring up.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Thank you.
43
44 MR. MORRIS: I am just checking the pleadings, in case there is
45 some important matter which we have missed out. I do not
46 think so. (Pause)
47
48 The Furazoldone and Avoparcin matters were put into the
49 pleadings on -- we applied on 17th January 1996, and they
50 were incorporated into the pleadings; not that the
51 pleadings are central to this issue.
52
53 I think much of the same arguments that we have given on
54 previous sections apply to this section and probably apply
55 to all the sections in terms that McDonald's recognise --
56 have had to recognise -- that the risk of food poisoning is
57 a serious one, and put what they believe are effective
58 systems into place, and policies which they say deal with
59 that very real risk. So that, to us, is only a recognition
60 that it is not -- for example, there is a risk that the
