Day 295 - 06 Nov 96 - Page 21


     
     1        cross-examined her fully and got absolutely nowhere
     2        because, like the rest of our witnesses, they are all
     3        telling the truth, and her expertise was clear.  She
     4        criticised the conditions in the abattoir that she had seen
     5        firsthand, and McDonald's failed to, despite a continuous
     6        kind of... what is the word...  an ongoing problem with
     7        this abattoir, who McDonald's were going to call, or who
     8        they were not going to call.  They could not really bring
     9        anybody who could counter her direct experience.
    10
    11        Mr. Bennett noted that, as she had noted, substantial
    12        amounts of the swab counts of contamination around the
    13        abattoir showed the worst grade, and he said this indicated
    14        that equipment at the abattoir was not properly cleaned.
    15        Obviously, she felt that was a completely unacceptable
    16        series of results.  There is an opinion there which I have
    17        referred to, which I have brought up before in this case,
    18        at the bottom of that page, that procedures which
    19        McDonald's have implemented may satisfy a court looking
    20        into negligence that they have some kind of procedures to
    21        monitor the situation in their abattoirs, or in their
    22        process factory, but that that would not be relevant in a
    23        case like this where we are talking about the effectiveness
    24        of that monitoring to actually prevent a risk being present
    25        in the food products when they arrive at the stores, when
    26        there clearly is a risk.
    27
    28        I don't know if there is any more.  Page 61, yes, this is
    29        Keith Kenny, quality assurance supervisor for McDonald's,
    30        also admitting under cross-examination that complaints
    31        about undercooked food may be dealt with at the counter and
    32        not reported to his department.  I think there was a lot
    33        more than that, but I have not had time to check the
    34        transcripts myself.
    35
    36        Finally is the evidence of Mr. Jackson, brought in as an
    37        expert for McDonald's in the case, and the third reference
    38        on page 62.  Admitted that "cross-contamination is
    39        important and should be prevented.  The more you can reduce
    40        the risk earlier the less the risk later".  I think that is
    41        quite a significant admission, because McDonald's whole
    42        supply chain effectively guarantees cross-contamination at
    43        every stage of the procedure up to the kitchens in their
    44        stores because of, obviously, as we have heard, the
    45        production diseases in the cattle, the abattoir conditions,
    46        and the storage in the abattoirs and the bulking of the raw
    47        material in the processing factory, bulking together.
    48        (Pause)
    49
    50        So, by that admission, we would say that is a very
    51        fundamental admission made by their own expert about the
    52        increase of risk that the McDonald's system is responsible
    53        for.  He also accepted, on the last page of these notes,
    54        that meat products are usually the vehicle for food
    55        poisoning, and accepted there may be unreported cases of
    56        food poisoning, particularly E.Coli.  That must be an
    57        understatement of the century.  Obviously, I have known
    58        hundreds of people to get food poisoning, I do not think
    59        anyone has ever often, mostly do not, identify the cause
    60        and also, who do you report the cases to?   People just do

Prev Next Index