Day 100 - 09 Mar 95 - Page 14
1 MS. STEEL (To the witness): How long do you keep a record of
2 customer complaints about food poisoning?
3 A. As far as I am aware, the records in our department
4 date back to at least the time when I joined the company
5 which was six years ago.
6
7 MR. MORRIS: So when you say "no incident diagnosed as food
8 poisoning", you have read the Preston Public Health
9 Laboratory Service report, presumably, into the food
10 poisoning incident that you have admitted responsibility
11 for, yes?
12 A. Yes, I have seen the document.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think you can probably put it this way: If
15 certain people concluded in relation to Preston that the
16 evidence pointed at McDonald's and that the infection had
17 probably come from McDonald's, would you say,
18 nevertheless: "Well, that is not proven?" Is that broadly
19 a summary of your view?
20 A. I would say that it is not totally proven, but I think
21 the point of the question is would that warrant an
22 investigation by McDonald's -- yes, it certainly would.
23
24 Q. I am not sure that is so, you see, because you have said
25 you do not know of any proven incidents.
26
27 MR. MORRIS: Yes. Can I ask a question?
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, do. I want to understand. You ask your
30 question in a moment. Let me just pursue it.
31 (To the witness): Are you saying there may be instances
32 where indications have been that McDonald's are responsible
33 but it has not been proved to your satisfaction; is that
34 what it boils down to?
35 A. No, that is not what I am saying.
36
37 Q. Say it again then. Try to express your view in your own
38 words again and then Mr. Morris will ask you a further
39 question.
40 A. Initially, for proof of someone to have food poisoning,
41 you would have to have stool samples taken. A doctor would
42 have to diagnose the condition, so if a doctor has
43 diagnosed the condition, there is then an investigation to
44 try to determine what food caused that condition.
45
46 Now, the absolute positive way would be actually (and it
47 does not happen in reality) to have a sample of all the
48 food that the person had eaten in, say, the week prior and
49 have that analysed to see which food sample that organism
50 was in.
51
52 Now, in the real world that does not happen, so when you
53 investigate a food poisoning incident, what you do is you
54 look at what the patient has eaten five or seven days,
55 usually, prior to the symptoms and try to determine what
56 caused it. No, if it is an individual incident, it is
57 almost impossible to determine what caused it. If there is
58 an outbreak which, if it was related to McDonald's, there
59 would have to be an outbreak. It would be almost
60 impossible to have one person ill. The number of customers
