Day 081 - 31 Jan 95 - Page 11


     
     1        microbiological (inaudible) showing recommended -- I think
     2        that is what they are, at any rate -- counts for cooked
     3        substances?
     4        A.  Yes.
     5
     6   Q.   My Lord, that is the document I handed in this morning.  Do
     7        you see the first part of the table at the top of that page
     8        which is numbered 99 has four categories whereas McKey has
     9        three:  "Satisfactory", "fairly satisfactory",
    10        "unsatisfactory" and "unacceptable", "potentially
    11        hazardous".  Can you look, for example, at the second item,
    12        "cooked meats", we see that a colony of less than 10,000,
    13        ten to the four, is it?
    14        A.  In the first column, yes, ten to the four is 10,000.
    15
    16   Q.   Is "satisfactory"?
    17        A.  Yes.
    18
    19   Q.   10,000 to 100,000 is "fairly satisfactory"?
    20        A.  10,000 to a million.
    21
    22   Q.   Sorry, you are quite right, it is a six, is it not?
    23        A.  Yes.
    24
    25   MR. MORRIS:  Are we looking at "cooked meats", are we?
    26
    27   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.  10,000 to a million is "fairly
    28        satisfactory", more than a million is "unsatisfactory" but
    29        no figure is given for "unacceptable".  Can you explain why
    30        no figure -- these are, I think, are counts per gramme, are
    31        they not?
    32        A.  Yes.  There is no figure in the "unacceptable" because
    33        these are guidelines and because they are dealing with
    34        total micro organisms they may not necessarily be pathogens
    35        present in here, so you cannot say that is unfit for food
    36        just because of a high TCC or TVC.
    37
    38   Q.   You notice that there is, I forget whether it is called a
    39        "dagger" or what it is called, to a footnote, do you see,
    40        in the last column?
    41        A.  Yes.
    42
    43   Q.   If you look underneath the two tables, the second footnote
    44        says, which is the one concerned, I think:  "Prosecution
    45        based solely on high aerobic plate counts in the absence of
    46        other criteria of unacceptability is unlikely to be
    47        successful".  Why is that?
    48        A.  Because it does not necessarily indicate that it is
    49        unfit for human consumption.
    50 
    51   Q.   If you look at the second table ----- 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can we just pause there a moment?  You may
    54        have said (and I may have missed) at the top,
    55        "Microbiological Quality", what is CFU?
    56        A.  Colony forming units, sir.
    57
    58   MR. RAMPTON:  Is that the same as, similar to, or different from
    59        a TVC?
    60        A.  These are just alternative descriptions of the same

Prev Next Index