Day 107 - 24 Mar 95 - Page 35


     
     1        A.  Campylobacter presents enormous difficulties to the
     2        extent that even after all these years we are still really
     3        uncertain as to where the primary sources and the primary
     4        mechanisms of transmission are.  Staphylococcus presents
     5        less difficulty.  The strain typing and the genetic typing,
     6        techniques we have, enable us to be fairly specific usually
     7        in identifying and tracking down sources.  They are very
     8        often human beings working in the environment.  Perfringens
     9        are so rare these days and it is so ubiquitous, you do not
    10        actually, you know, worry about sources.  Usually, you
    11        are more concerned about the mechanisms by which it gave
    12        rise to food poisoning.
    13
    14        Listeriosis is giving considerable problems
    15        epidemiologically, very considerable problems, in tracking
    16        down sources for the same reason roughly of salmonella, is
    17        because it so widespread in the environment that you are
    18        spoilt for choice.  Sometimes it is very difficult to pin
    19        it down -- not sometimes, very often.
    20
    21   Q.   Going back to the reassurance provided by the routine
    22        checks?
    23        A.  Yes.
    24
    25   Q.   You have done, we have heard evidence that I think,
    26        I cannot remember the detail, that internal temperatures
    27        are taken three times a day?
    28        A.  Yes, that is my understanding.
    29
    30   Q.   Would that reassure you that the burgers throughout the day
    31         -- would that give you any information?  What information
    32        would that give you, the result of an internal temperature
    33        check on a burger three times a day?
    34        A.  It has some validity, one cannot dismiss it altogether,
    35        unlike the microbiological testings where it is extremely
    36        dismissive.  They will not get the results wrong all the
    37        time.  The equipment is not subject to wild frequent
    38        fluctuations.  So, therefore, by and large, as a routine
    39        basic check, it is of some value.  I would prefer to see on
    40        top of that perhaps more thorough checks such as, say,
    41        wiring up equipment, permanent monitoring of certain test
    42        equipment to give online, continuous monitoring, or perhaps
    43        even (and it is an observation that one could make) one
    44        would be more comforted if there were, in fact, more
    45        reliance on mechanical systems rather than manual systems.
    46
    47   Q.   Can you just elaborate on that?
    48        A.  Well, I mentioned it earlier, that human beings are
    49        prone to error.  This is inevitable, inescapable.  The more
    50        human beings you have in an operation and the more 
    51        times you do that operation, the greater the chance of 
    52        failure.  This I refer to in paragraph 21. 
    53
    54   Q.   You refer to "inherently unhygienic and fragile"?
    55        A.  This is precisely the point.  It is a very fragile
    56        system.
    57
    58   Q.   Can you explain?
    59        A.  It is reliant, essentially, as we have seen going
    60        through the food chain, from the animal onwards, the

Prev Next Index