Day 081 - 31 Jan 95 - Page 25
1 to say". Would it be fair to say that if it is more spread
2 around and there is a cooking break down, there is more
3 possibility that somebody is likely to get a dose of food
4 poisoning as a result of the bacteria?
5 A. Well, you require sufficient numbers in order to cause
6 infection and if you are spreading the organisms amongst a
7 larger quantity then you are starting from a lower base.
8
9 Q. But more people will be exposed to the risk?
10 A. More people might be exposed to a lesser risk.
11
12 Q. If there is a breakdown, not necessarily a total break
13 down, but if the storage conditions are not quite right,
14 there would be more burgers, or whatever -- burgers, for
15 example -- with these bacteria present initially to be able
16 to proliferate, to start to proliferate?
17 A. Yes, that is a possibility, yes.
18
19 Q. Because if they are not in the burgers initially they
20 cannot proliferate, can they?
21 A. No.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But is not Ms. Steel's point good to this
24 extent, that some of the things are potentially hazardous
25 if you can detect them at all, quite regardless of
26 quantity, for instance, salmonella?
27 A. Yes. Well, the reason why some of these are not -- the
28 product is unsatisfactory if they are detected is that that
29 indicates contamination of a faecal origin, and so you do
30 not know what else is there. So, if you detect salmonella,
31 you do not want salmonella nor do you want any other form
32 of contamination, so that is unacceptable.
33
34 MS. STEEL: So, if the salmonella burden in chicken was being
35 increased from one per cent in the live birds to 25 per
36 cent in the meat, that is not something that would be
37 considered to be hygienic?
38 A. I saw that statement; I was not sure what it referred
39 to.
40
41 Q. In terms of what, sorry?
42 A. Well, it was just a simple fact that one per cent was
43 being increased to 25 per cent, but it did not indicate in
44 what products.
45
46 Q. So is that why you do not feel able to comment on that
47 then?
48 A. Well, I cannot comment because I do not have any
49 further information.
50
51 Q. Right. If it was one per cent in the live birds and then
52 25 per cent in the meat, would you consider that to be
53 something that was good practice?
54 A. If meat is being bulked, then the inevitable
55 consequence is that you do increase the numbers of items
56 which have contamination.
57
58 Q. Right. So do you feel then that this is something that is
59 inevitable with the present system of bulking the meat
60 together?
