Day 244 - 03 May 96 - Page 09

     
     1
     2   Q.   Would it be a good idea to copy some of the relevant pages
     3        before we go on?
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  I think press on now and see how we do,
     6        but make sure I have photocopies.  I suggest you bring them
     7        at latest next week because then I will remember what it
     8        was all about.
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  They may be marked but only to underline the
    11        bits that I might read out anyway.
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do not worry about that.
    14
    15   MR. MORRIS:  I will read out a few parts which you have.  You
    16        are relying on this whole document, in any event, yes, by
    17        referring to it in your statement?
    18        A.  Yes.
    19
    20   Q.   The presence of E.Coli in herds, is it accepted that E.Coli
         is present in British beef herds, E.Coli 0157 specifically?
    22        A.  In cattle generally?
    23
    24   Q.   Yes?
    25        A.  That is a difficult question to answer.
    26
    27   Q.   This report refers on page 52 in paragraph 4.10: "E.Coli
    28        0157 was isolated from 84 out of 2103 cattle, that is 4 per
    29        cent, presented for slaughter at an abattoir in Sheffield
    30        during July and August 1992.  Trace back investigations
    31        showed that the farms of origin for 34 of the E.Coli 0157
    32        positive animals were geographically diverse, Yorkshire,
    33        Worcestershire, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, suggesting
    34        that ineffected herds may be more common than had
    35        previously been thought."
    36
    37        Would you accept that?
    38        A.  Yes.  Referring to your question, it is the word
    39        "acceptable" that presents me with a problem, and it is
    40        intriguing that in the Fresh Meat Hygiene of Inspection
         Regulations (1995), as is Schedule 10, which sets out the
    42        criteria for condemnation of carcasses, there is reference
    43        to a requirement that carcasses contaminated should be
    44        condemned.  The law does not, however, specify what it
    45        means by "contamination" which is quite interesting.
    46
    47        However, arguably presence of a known pathogene of some
    48        significance could be considered in that technical legal
    49        sense as unacceptable.  Whether it is practical to accept
    50        it as unacceptable is a moot point because we would start 
    51        condemning an awful lot of cattle. 
    52 
    53   Q.   Right.
    54
    55   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I wonder where we are going.  I do not
    56        want to interrupt the witness.  We have had Dr. North here
    57        before on this very topic at some considerable length.  It
    58        is common ground in this case that the risk of E.Coli
    59        poisoning from a consumption of food, specifically in this
    60        case McDonald's food, but any food, is something that you