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
