Day 100 - 09 Mar 95 - Page 10

     
     1        infrequently -- I would say half a dozen times a year.
     2
     3   Q.   That you actually send the burger off for investigation?
     4        A.  Yes -- or any product that is allegedly under-cooked,
     5        not just a burger.
     6
     7   Q.   Yes.  So, in the vast majority of cases the product that
     8        the customer is complaining about has not been preserved so
     9        you cannot do that kind of investigation?
    10        A.  That is correct.
    11
    12   Q.   Of those ones that you send off, what is the result for
    13        them?
    14        A.  Well, we look at the, well, the total count, really,
    15        the TVC, to see what the bacterial load is, to give us an
    16        indication on whether or not it has been cooked.  I think,
    17        possibly, I can recall two instances where, and that was on
    18        a chicken product, where it appears that the chicken was
    19        not fully cooked.
    20
    Q.   That is within the last year?
    22        A.  No, that is since I have been with McDonald's.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  When you are doing a TVC on a product of
    25        which complaint has been made that it has not been cooked,
    26        to what extent is the microbiological finding affected by
    27        how the product has been kept between complaint and
    28        testing?
    29        A.  It is very dependent on how the product has been kept
    30        because, obviously, the products are not sterile after they
    31        have been cooked.  The bacterial load has been dramatically
    32        reduced, but they are not totally sterile.  So, if they are
    33        kept in an environment that allows bacterial growth -- we
    34        spoke yesterday about between 6 and 63 degrees Centigrade
    35         -- then you will get multiplication of bacterias.  It is
    36        impossible then to say whether the burger or the chicken
    37        was fully cooked or if the multiplication happened after
    38        the event.
    39
    40   Q.   But if, for instance, a relatively high count of Salmonella
         was found in chicken, if that had been properly cooked
    42        Salmonella should have been killed?
    43        A.  That is correct.
    44
    45   Q.   So unless there had been some subsequent contamination with
    46        Salmonella you would not expect to find any at all,
    47        wherever it had been kept?
    48        A.  Certainly, yes, in a chicken product, looking for
    49        Salmonella, also is an indication as to whether it has been
    50        cooked because, as you say, the Salmonella organisms should 
    51        have been destroyed by the cooking process.  The other test 
    52        that I mentioned was called a phosphatase taste which is an 
    53        enzyme, again which is destroyed at around cooking
    54        temperatures and the presence or absence -----
    55
    56   Q.   I see.  So, regardless of how it is kept, there are fairly
    57        reliable tests as to whether it was properly cooked in the
    58        first place, are there?
    59        A.  Yes.
    60