Day 106 - 23 Mar 95 - Page 16

     
     1
     2   Q.   Is there any concern in terms of human health for the
     3        existence of foreign bodies or bones, or whatever, in meat
     4        products when they are cooked?
     5        A.  That can be answered on two levels.  There is the
     6        actual physical damage which can be caused by consumption
     7        of certain foreign bodes, for instance, a sharp sliver of
     8        bone can do physical damage to the mouth and subsequently.
     9
    10        There is possibly an argument that certain types of foreign
    11        objects will have substantially different thermal
    12        characteristics.  In other words, they will take up heat,
    13        less or more, as the case may be; in certain instances one
    14        could argue that they could cause cool spots within the
    15        substance of the meat product and thereby prevent the kill
    16        temperature being reached and lead, therefore, to the
    17        survival of micro-organisms within that food.
    18
    19   Q.   So would that be a concern of yours, say, for example, in a
    20        burger product, if there were foreign bodies in it in terms
         of the cooking, killing all the bacteria?
    22        A.  I do not know that I can describe it as a concern of
    23        mine, but I would certainly -- if it were put to me that it
    24        was a theoretical risk, I would say, yes, it is a
    25        theoretical risk, but how that translates in practice,
    26        I think one would have to look at more specific cases.
    27
    28   Q.   Are food poisoning organisms commonly found in the guts of
    29        food animals?
    30        A.  Yes.
    31
    32   Q.   Faecal contamination during slaughter or in the raw meat
    33        following slaughter, what kind of prevalence is that?
    34        A.  I would say it was almost an inevitable consequence of
    35        the translation between the live animal and the finished
    36        carcass, to the extent that you can fairly well rely on the
    37        fact that all your carcasses coming through are to a
    38        greater or lesser extent contaminated in that context.
    39
    40   Q.   With some kind of level of faecal contamination?
         A.  With some kind of level, yes.  It may not be visible,
    42        in fact, mostly is not visible but, by and large, it is
    43        fair to say that -- I am always reluctant to say 100 per
    44        cent because you only have to then find one that is not --
    45        the larger bulk will be thus contaminated.
    46
    47   Q.   What is your view on the washing of carcasses in abattoirs?
    48        A.  My personal view?
    49
    50   Q.   Say, for example, beef? 
    51        A.  Not wholly shared, I think it has to be said that.  My 
    52        personal view is to be avoided at all costs.  I think it is 
    53        an awful practice.  I think it should not be done.  So
    54        saying, it is actually required by the current law.
    55
    56   Q.   What are the results of the washing of carcasses in terms
    57        of food safety?
    58        A.  It saturates the meat, gives it an awful appearance.
    59        It makes the fat soggy.  It takes focal points of what may
    60        be discrete contamination and spreads them uniformly