Day 107 - 24 Mar 95 - Page 10


     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  In, fact you have asked a very large number
     3        but no-one has taken any objection to it, so do not worry
     4        about it.  The most obvious example was the question you
     5        asked about the 1990 Act, but no-one took any objection.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  Mr. Rampton does exactly the same thing.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do not worry.  We can do without the
    10        arguments.  I would rather you put it in this general way,
    11        because, do not forget, your witness here is the food
    12        safety witness.
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So:  Do you see any ramifications for food
    17        safety in what you see in those two paragraphs or not?
    18        That is a leading question as well, but there we are.
    19
    20   MR. MORRIS (To the witness):  Mr. North, do you see any
    21        ramifications or concerns regarding food safety with what
    22        it says in those paragraphs?
    23        A.  Yes.  I speak with knowledge of the Preston Community
    24        Centre Report and the two linked says that, yes, if you
    25        push the procedures, then food safety will suffer.
    26
    27   Q.   In what way?
    28        A.  Well, clearly, the critical control in food safety
    29        terms is that cooking of the product.  The time to which
    30        product is exposed to heat is critical and, therefore, if
    31        you are pushing time, i.e. the hustle, and that is
    32        foreshortened, then that has implications in food safety.
    33
    34   Q.   McDonald's have admitted a number of incidents of the
    35        under-cooking -- I mean, for example, only yesterday
    36        I believe it was, an admission about the under-cooking of
    37        chicken McNuggets which contained salmonella which were
    38        then tested by local health officials and declared unfit
    39        for human consumption.  That was in Shrewsbury in or before
    40        November 1994.  "McDonald's stated that procedures for
    41        cooking chicken were being reviewed in part due to staff
    42        confusion over the use of the mechanical timing devices for
    43        the cooking of such products".
    44
    45   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, Mr. Morris had better get it right; I
    46        think it is not fair on the witness otherwise.  The
    47        admission actually is that the under-cooked -- sorry, my
    48        Lord.
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:  And on 6th August 1990 McDonald's pleaded guilty to 
    51        an offence for selling raw chicken sandwich in Sutton.  The 
    52        meat in the sandwich was found to be pink and 
    53        transluscent.  In Kingston, April 1991, fined for serving
    54        an under-cooked McChicken Sandwich.  Those incidents, as
    55        admitted, what is your response -----
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just ask him what, if any, conclusion he
    58        feels able to draw from them.
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:  Are you surprised?  What conclusions can you draw?

Prev Next Index