Day 125 - 12 May 95 - Page 11


     
     1
     2        The big thing is that from my standpoint there were more
     3        than sufficient procedures in place to safeguard that
     4        happening.  It is just a matter of making sure that those
     5        procedures are followed.  So, if we have incidents like
     6        that, it means, in my view, that someone did not follow
     7        recommended procedure and practice.
     8
     9   Q.   But you still felt it necessary to increase the cooking
    10        temperature after the Jack-in-the-box incident, so you had
    11        not increased the temperature after the McDonald's food
    12        poisoning incident to that level at that time -- to
    13        whatever it is now, 149 degrees?
    14        A.  I think that is a fair -- that is not a fair
    15        characterisation of it.  Again we upgraded our equipment
    16        during that period of time.  The type of grills that were
    17        being installed in our restaurants in the late 80s were far
    18        superior to the type of grills that were used in the 70s,
    19        in the early 80s.  In the latter part of the 80s, 90s, we
    20        introduced the two-sided cooking method, so that meant
    21        again a change in the cooking time.
    22
    23   Q.   Apart from the fact that the late 80, 90s is some
    24        considerable years after 1982, if you are concerned about
    25        your customers' well-being, I believe the two-sided cooking
    26        method was introduced to speed up service time for
    27        customers, to make the operation faster-moving, more
    28        efficient?
    29        A.  That is not entirely true.
    30
    31   Q.   Partly true then?
    32        A.  It is partly true.  It spoke to a number of different
    33        issues and we were quite satisfied with adding that piece
    34        of equipment to our restaurants.  To suggest, at least you
    35        are inferring, that perhaps we should have looked at the
    36        change in the temperature, you know, prior to the change in
    37        the 90s, the internal temperature was acceptable by all
    38        standards.
    39
    40   Q.   So why increase it?
    41        A.  I think I have answered that question.  Really we
    42        wanted to even provide a greater degree of assurance.
    43
    44   Q.   So prior to increasing it, you were not 100 per cent sure
    45        that the procedure would be safe.
    46        A.  Maybe 99.8.
    47
    48   MR. MORRIS:  In terms of the new grills, which we have implied
    49        were brought in for efficiency of service, you say they
    50        also had some food safety, improvement.  In what way would 
    51        you say the new grills brought in in the late 80s were 
    52        safer than the ones previously? 
    53        A.  It gave us a better quality product, a juicer product.
    54
    55   Q.   In terms of food safety?
    56        A.  In terms of food safety, we were able to get, maintain,
    57        the temperature of the product for a longer period of
    58        time.  There was less fluctuation in the temperature of the
    59        grill, the two-sided grill, than the single grill.  The
    60        recovery of the two-sided grill was far superior to the

Prev Next Index