Day 244 - 03 May 96 - Page 16

     
     1        I have been asked to comment on whether the claims by the
     2        Defendants as to the presence of pesticides in foods sold
     3        by McDonald's can be substantiated.  In short, I would aver
     4        that it can be said with some confidence that pesticides
     5        residues are so commonly found in all manner of foods that
     6        it would be inconceivable that the foods served by the
     7        McDonald's restaurant chain could have been free from such
     8        residues.
     9
    10        In support of this view, I would draw from a document
    11        produced by the Pesticides Trust, entitled Pesticides,
    12        Policies and People, in which is made reference to a
    13        Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food working party
    14        on pesticides residues, covering the period 1987 to 1989.
    15        This, I believe, covers the periods when allegations were
    16        made by the Defendants in respects of McDonald's foods.
    17
    18        Surveys carried out on behalf of the working party showed
    19        that, of food samples analysed, 34 per cent contained
    20        detectable pesticide residues.  This included the finding
         of 32.2 per cent positives in dietary staples such as
    22        bread, milk and potato, and 34 per cent in animal products
    23        including meats.
    24
    25        Given that this sample could be taken as representative of
    26        the state of foods in the UK at the time, and an
    27        explanation is valid, it would suggest that detectable
    28        residues of pesticides could have been found in a third of
    29        McDonald's foods, had they been specifically sampled.
    30
    31        However, it should be said that the sample base had its
    32        limitations in that relatively few samples of meat were
    33        taken - only seven of beef - and that there would be
    34        difficulty extrapolating from these data.  Nevertheless,
    35        I am aware from my own knowledge that, at this time this
    36        survey was carried out, the Ministry of Agriculture
    37        Fisheries and Food were enforcing compulsory pesticide
    38        treatment programmes of sheep and cattle.
    39
    40        In both instances, these animals were treated with
         organophosphorous compounds (OPs) at relatively high doses,
    42        respectively for the treatment of sheep scab and for warble
    43        fly.  On the basis of my personal knowledge of the
    44        behaviour of OPs in mammalian systems, I understand it is
    45        quite possible to detect OP metabolites some months after
    46        these pesticides have been applied.
    47
    48        On balance of probabilities therefore, I believe it is
    49        likely that - had the beef used in McDonald's burgers been
    50        tested - OP residues would have been found.  In respect of 
    51        cows, the MAFF report attests to some 400 per cent of milk 
    52        samples being positive for organochlorine residues, in 
    53        which context the cows which produced the milk were likely
    54        to have been affected with these pesticides. In this
    55        context - and having regard to my observation that cows are
    56        used in McDonald's burgers - there is a high probability
    57        that organochlorines residues would have been found.
    58
    59        Further, in respect of cereals used to make bread - the
    60        substance of the baps used with the burgers sold by