Day 097 - 06 Mar 95 - Page 32

     
     1        quantities.
     2
     3        If that is so, it would be better to remove "pathogenic"
     4        because the question is whether bacteria in those
     5        quantities are actually pathogenic.  If that is not what
     6        the Defendants are batting for here, they are saying that
     7        something like Salmonella is routinely found in chicken,
     8        then they should say so.  In fact, they have no need really
     9        to say that, because that, one might think, is sufficiently
    10        covered by the last sentence to which you do not object.
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  No, of course I do not, because that is what the
    13        evidence says.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  At least 25 per cent of the chicken products
    16        would amount to "routinely found".
    17
    18   MR. RAMPTON:  I do not want to spend a lot of time on it because
    19        I know your Lordship will decide the case on the evidence
    20        at the end of the day.  But, what does trouble me is really
         this, that it is, what shall I say, symptomatic of a way of
    22        thinking, that those words "pathogenic bacteria" should
    23        have been put there without any exception, for example,
    24        which the Defendants know perfectly has to be made on the
    25        evidence for, perhaps, the most dangerous of all, which is
    26        E.coli 0157.  It simply is not right (and they know it is
    27        not right) to say that, amongst others, is routinely found
    28        in raw meat products sold by McDonald's or received by
    29        McDonald's.
    30
    31   MS. STEEL:   If it makes Mr. Rampton happy, I am prepared to
    32        change it to "pathogenic bacteria are routinely found" or
    33        "pathogenic bacteria (other than E.coli) are routinely
    34        found in the raw meat products".
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What are the pathogenic bacteria then because
    37        ----
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:  The thing is that, whilst not all of the bacteria
    40        that are found are pathogenic, it is my understanding that
         it is routine that within the total viable count that there
    42        are pathogenic bacteria, and that when there are large
    43        quantities there is also a risk that it is pathogenic.  So,
    44        it is on two fronts really.  Mr. Walker does mention on
    45        page 44 about staphylococcusaurus and staphylococcusalmus
    46        which might be found in the beef products.
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I am troubled by that.  Again there might
    49        be staphylococcusaurus and others, I do not know, but they
    50        are the only two which he actually mentions specifically. 
    51        I asked him whether it would matter so long as it did not 
    52        contain E.coli.  He said:  "It would matter in so far that 
    53        we also specifically look and identify one organism,
    54        Salmonella".  I do not want to argue about the evidence, my
    55        Lord.  I do think, though, if I may put it like that, that
    56        it is simply not reputable not to exclude E.coli from that
    57        pleading on the state of the evidence.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Ms. Steel has volunteered that it would be
    60        right to keep in "pathogenic", she says, because the large