Day 094 - 01 Mar 95 - Page 60


     
     1   MS. STEEL:  Would it surprise you if the USDA inspected an
     2        approved beef did have alarmingly high count of the E.coli
     3        bacteria?
     4        A.  You have to define that for me, what "alarming amount"
     5        is.
     6
     7   Q.   What would you consider to be an alarmingly high amount?
     8        A.  Of what?
     9
    10   Q.   Of E.coli bacteria.
    11        A.  In general?
    12
    13   Q.   Yes.
    14        A.  E.coli again covers a lot of species.  What I would be
    15        concerned would be something in the neighbourhood of excess
    16        of half a million colonies per gramme.  I would be
    17        concerned with that.
    18
    19   Q.   What about if it was 0157?
    20        A.  That is a different story.  I am concerned with a
    21        single one.  Some of the research that we have managed to
    22        fund and provide those kind of research to the USDA so they
    23        could apply those regulations, is that even if you find a
    24        few (by few I mean 10), that is a different story.  That
    25        could be harmful for humans.  That is the only bacteria
    26        that now has the capability.
    27
    28   Q.   Would it surprise you if meat that had been inspected and
    29        passed by USDA was tested and found to have more than half
    30        a million colonies per gramme of E.coli bacteria not the
    31        0157: H?
    32        A.  Would it surprise me, yes.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Provided it had been properly kept in
    35        between?
    36        A.  That is correct.
    37
    38   MS. STEEL:   Were you aware of Congressional hearings into this
    39        area about hygiene?
    40        A.  Are you speaking specifically about the Congressional
    41        hearings regarding E.coli 0157?
    42
    43   Q.   No, just about hygiene and inspectors in general I think.
    44        It is in the right-hand column you referred to at the
    45        bottom of the page.
    46        A.  I have been aware, I have seen on TV, I have read
    47        reports, but I do not know which one you are specifically
    48        talking about.  If you let me I can better answer your
    49        question.
    50 
    51   Q.   Well, it says, "Dr. Norman Kigiger, a USDA supervisory 
    52        veterinary medical officer, said, 'We are allowing dirty 
    53        heads to get through due to an inspection mode which by
    54        design allows this.'  He then went on to say, 'A quarter of
    55        the approved heads are contaminated'".
    56        A.  I do not remember that.  It does happen at his own
    57        fault.  I am very surprised again they make those kinds of
    58        statements.  That is their job.  That is the sole purpose
    59        of their existence in that plant, is prevent that.  If they
    60        are not doing that, and if they are trying to keep their

Prev Next Index