Day 129 - 25 May 95 - Page 12


     
     1        (and it is no more than that) is that there must have been
     2        a failure to recognise or an ignoring of the fact it was
     3        not the bleeper for that piece of apparatus and the light
     4        was not flashing for that piece of apparatus?
     5        A.  It either was not -----
     6
     7   Q.   But it would need both?
     8        A.  It either -- it might be, for example, when they put
     9        the basket down they did not activate the timer, and it
    10        might be they were reacting to a timer on the adjacent
    11        vat.  Again we can only speculate, because we could not
    12        find out at the time.  But what we have done as well,
    13        because we are not happy that even changing the pitch of
    14        the buzzer is going to stop this mix up, is we have some
    15        work now being carried out on developing an alarm which
    16        will tell you if you take the product out early. So that
    17        alarm will go off.  Again it is technology that does not
    18        exist at the moment in a final format.  We have it on trial
    19        in one store, and we are just about to put it in a few
    20        more.
    21
    22   MS. STEEL:  Presumably, that would not work if -- I am just
    23        trying it get my head around this.  The McNuggets, were
    24        they partially cooked?
    25        A.  From what Mark was able it tell me, they had had very
    26        little time in the frying.  Now, we are not saying this
    27        alarm is a panacea either; it will not be because there are
    28        always ways to get around it.  So, what we are also doing
    29        is, we have instructed our supplier, Sun Valley, to develop
    30        a precooked chicken product which will be  pathogen-free
    31        anyway.  Again we are depending on new technology there.
    32        They are building a new factory which is due to open this
    33        autumn, and that will have new type of cooking equipment
    34        put in, which should mean they can precook the chicken for
    35        us.
    36
    37   Q.   Then, what, you would reheat it when it was at the store?
    38        A.  The information we have at the moment, is we would
    39        still have to put it through the same cooking process, but
    40        it would mean that should somebody make a mistake and, you
    41        know, as long as we employ people from time to time they
    42        are going to make mistakes, no matter how wonderful the
    43        training is, or the procedures are, and when they make
    44        mistakes, if there is a chance of there being any pathogens
    45        there, then, yes, we are always going to run the risk of
    46        putting one of our customers, a chance of eating something
    47        that we would rather they did not have.  So, that is why we
    48        go to these extremes.  Again, you can imagine in terms of
    49        time, money and hassle involved, we just feel it is
    50        worthwhile to do it.  We just do not want to serve 
    51        under-cooked products ever again. 
    52 
    53   Q.   Of course, it would cost you a lot of money if someone sued
    54        you as a result of getting food poisoning?
    55        A.  Well, I believe it actually would not -- yes, it would
    56        cost money, but you are not talking about the same sort of
    57        money as we are spending on developing these alarms and
    58        that we are spending, or asking Sun Valley to spend, in
    59        terms of developing this precooked product.
    60

Prev Next Index