Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 26


     
     1        otherwise.  The salmonella crisis, where a government
     2        minister ordered the destruction of hundreds of thousands
     3        of chickens.  I think that is before 1990, certainly it was
     4        before the start of the trial when we issued our
     5        counterclaim against McDonald's.
     6
     7        E.Coli has been an increasing concern recently resulting in
     8        a major report to the government from one of the toxicology
     9        committees, and concern over bacterial contamination and
    10        over certain additives, and the whole issue of additives,
    11        is a general public concern.  It has been said by
    12        McDonald's that, well, the point is the recognition of the
    13        importance of evaluating and, if necessary, banning certain
    14        additives or certain procedures in slaughter houses is
    15        precisely because the risk of food poisoning is considered
    16        to be substantial and significant and one of important
    17        public debate.  In fact, as we have heard in this case, one
    18        of the additives that McDonald's used up to 1990, when they
    19        sued us, potassium bromate -- I think it is called -- has
    20        since been banned as carcinogenic, or probably
    21        carcinogenic, whatever.
    22
    23        So, the point I am making is that the whole issue of food
    24        poisoning is one that is very much in the public domain,
    25        and that includes pesticides residues, the use of hormones
    26        in meat products and the alarming development of the
    27        resistance to antibiotic treatment in humans because of the
    28        consumption of meat that has been treated with
    29        antibiotics.
    30
    31        McDonald's representatives and witnesses in this case
    32        I think, again, the basic admission is that this is a
    33        serious and substantial issue and one which they take
    34        seriously.  They only take it seriously because they know
    35        what a serious problem it can be.  Of course, we have heard
    36        about McDonald's being, I think, the first fast food
    37        company responsible for an outbreak of E.Coli food
    38        poisoning in the US in 1992 and then the first in the UK in
    39        1991, nine years later.  So, they are quite aware of the
    40        potential of their food to cause food poisoning and, as we
    41        have heard, a recent government committee - sorry the VO
    42        Toxic Committee recommends to deal with E.Coli longer
    43        cooking times than McDonald's use in their products, when
    44        they cook their burgers.
    45
    46        McDonald's are aware of such reports.  They are aware that
    47        their own expert witness stated that he did not feel that
    48        their burgers were being cooked to the high enough minimum
    49        temperature, he said it should be 73 degrees rather than 70
    50        degrees, and for that reason they did not call him as a 
    51        witness.  However, his statement given to the defendants 
    52        only added further fuel to their reasonable belief that 
    53        even McDonald's had to recognise the inadequacy of their
    54        cooking procedures.  If they, of course, took any notice of
    55        their own experts.  Of course, there has been further
    56        evidence about microbiology, and I will not go into it now,
    57        from David Walker from McKeys.
    58
    59        We have called our own experienced and authoritative
    60        witnesses.  Dr. Richard North, who dealt with a range of

Prev Next Index