Day 094 - 01 Mar 95 - Page 12


     
     1        to produce a bacteria-free meat unless it is properly
     2        cooked -- nobody can.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think the question was that there was no
     5        government or regulatory testing.  I understood that to
     6        mean were there any regulations which provided for
     7        compulsory testing for bacteria, Salmonella in particular,
     8        perhaps?
     9        A.  No, there are not.
    10
    11   MS. STEEL:   That is because it would be something that would be
    12        impossible to test for, is it?
    13        A.  That is correct.  Up to this point, there is no
    14        technology that can do that, to test or to avoid its
    15        presence.
    16
    17   Q.   So it is basically the case that it is inevitable that
    18        there are going to be bacteria on the meat?
    19        A.  Absolutely, in everywhere, in every plant, every
    20        animal, every pet, there is going to be bacteria -- every
    21        human being.
    22
    23   Q.   Some of those bacteria are going to be harmful bacteria?
    24        A.  Absolutely, could be, yes.
    25
    26   Q.   Your defence against that, presumably, is that you hope
    27        that the products are going to be cooked properly?
    28        A.  We cook the products.
    29
    30   Q.   Yes, that is your defence, is it?
    31        A.  The defence for what?
    32
    33   Q.   Against customers getting food poisoning?
    34        A.  Protection, yes.  It is, that is what we call a
    35        critical control point.  That is what it is.  Cooking is a
    36        critical control point.
    37
    38   Q.   Is it right that whilst the number of poultry processing
    39        units increased in the USA, the number of US DA inspectors
    40        decreased?
    41        A.  That is correct.
    42
    43   Q.   So inspectors are having to check increasing amounts of
    44        chicken each?
    45        A.  Not necessarily.  The intent of that is that the United
    46        States has made a proposal or an intent to go and implement
    47        HACCP.  The intent of HACCP, the major emphasis is
    48        prevention.  When you do that, you do not need inspectors.
    49        When you have the inspectors, you have the responsibility
    50        on the United States government.  When you do not have the 
    51        inspector, you have direct responsibility to the plants. 
    52        That is what -- those things combined, that is what is 
    53        causing that.  The best plant, what they have proven time
    54        after time, that even if you increase inspection, what you
    55        cause is that the plants relied on the inspectors for their
    56        Quality Assurance programme.  If you reduce that, you take
    57        the responsibility.  When the company takes that
    58        responsibility, they do a far better job than that.
    59
    60   Q.   So the inspection is actually left to the company rather

Prev Next Index