Day 105 - 16 Mar 95 - Page 54


     
     1        10,000,000 we can argue about that outside of today --
     2        would you say the 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 was a responsible
     3        rejection figure?
     4        A.  Yes, from McKey's point of view.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Either of them would be?
     7        A.  Yes.  McKey's require 75 per cent, as I recall it, of
     8        their deliveries to be within the acceptable range.  That
     9        means that 25 per cent can be pushing what we have already
    10        talked about is the boundary in the broad band of
    11        acceptability.  So, I would say that McKey's specifications
    12        are absolutely responsible.  In terms of health, because
    13        the health check is for the E.coli, the Total Viable Count
    14        is a matter of shelf-life and keeping quality.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:  Would you think 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 would be
    17        the most effective cut-off point for acceptance of beef?
    18        Your preference?
    19        A.  If the meat is satisfactory for the product and within
    20        the range specified from a health point of view, I am
    21        perfectly satisfied with it.  I am keeping the conversation
    22        to healthy meat which is safe to eat.  There is a broad
    23        range of Total Viable Counts which is acceptable from a
    24        safety point of view.  McDonald's will choose from a
    25        quality point of view which band of acceptability is
    26        satisfactory to them.  There is no legal standard.  There
    27        is nothing absolute in this context.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Are you saying the TVC or TCC is not an
    30        indicator for health reasons?  I can see that that is an
    31        indicator for shelf-life or keeping quality, as you say,
    32        but are you saying it is not used as a broad indicator for
    33        health reasons as well?
    34        A.  In my opinion, it is not because pathogens do not
    35        survive particularly well in the presence of spoilage
    36        organisms, and there is no objective information about what
    37        pathogens may or may not be present.  There is a complex
    38        pattern of growth of micro-organisms on meat.
    39
    40   MR. MORRIS:  So, for example, when you look at those swab tests
    41        then there is no cause for complacency if they find 60,000
    42        bacterial count, is there, because that is no indication
    43        that the meat is in good condition either by your
    44        definition?
    45        A.  I am talking, strictly speaking, about the knowledge of
    46        pathogens which may or may not be present on the basis of
    47        Total Viable Count.  The Total Viability Count indicates
    48        the age of the meat, the general hygiene conditions under
    49        which it has been produced and its likely shelf-life.
    50 
    51   Q.   What I am saying is, previously to testing for E.coli, yes, 
    52        Jarretts did not test for any specific pathogenic bacteria, 
    53        did it?
    54        A.  No.
    55
    56   Q.   Right, so are you saying they have been completely
    57        irresponsible by not testing specifically for other
    58        bacteria that have health implications?
    59        A.  I am not saying that at all because the law is set out
    60        with the objective of producing safe meat.  So, the first

Prev Next Index