Day 244 - 03 May 96 - Page 05

     
     1                       RICHARD NORTH, Recalled:
     2                 Examined by the Defendants, continued:
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You are on oath or affirmation, whichever it
     5        was, I cannot remember, from the previous occasion, Dr.
     6        North.
     7        A.  Yes.
     8
     9   MR. MORRIS:  Dr. North, I am going to read out the statement on
    10        E.Coli first and we will deal with the pesticides statement
    11        after we have dealt with the E.Coli matter.  If there is
    12        anything which you want to clarify or correct, please stop
    13        me at the end of the sentence and make the point.
    14
    15        "The implications of the Preston Escherichia coli outbreak
    16        in relation to the hygienic operation of McDonald's
    17        fast-food outlets.
    18
    19        An interim report by Richard A E North PhD.
    20
         14th December 1995.
    22
    23        In my view, the standards presented in McDonald's outlets
    24        in the UK do not represent real hygienic standards.
    25
    26        This chain has a high reputation for hygiene.  It designs
    27        its kitchens so that they are visible to its customers.
    28        They are brightly lit with modern-looking finishes and
    29        equipment, which would accord with what, in my experience,
    30        is the expectation of the 'lay' consumer as to the nature
    31        of hygiene.
    32
    33        Yet, the Company has admitted in High Court proceedings to
    34        which this report is directed that, in 1991, it caused
    35        illness to a number of its customers in an outbreak of a
    36        particularly serious disease caused by a strain of
    37        bacterium called Escherichia coli 0157H (Marshall 1991).
    38        The outbreak eventually affected 23 people (Advisory
    39        Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food 1993).
    40
         One of the shops involved, in Preston, Lancashire, was no
    42        different from the others, presenting a clean 'hygienic"
    43        appearance, with the fittings and equipment typical of the
    44        chain.  But, in January 1991, the produce - according to
    45        the strict definition of the term - was far from hygienic.
    46        By 'hygienic' I have regard to accepted definitions of
    47        hygiene, which relate to the prevention of food-poisoning
    48        and food-borne diseases.  By failing to prevent a
    49        food-borne disease, the unit failed to conform with the
    50        definition of 'hygienic' and was, therefore, not hygienic. 
    51 
    52        This example underlines the limitations of assessing 
    53        hygiene by means of visual appearances and points up flaws
    54        in the system which attests to good hygiene, in particular
    55        to the 'hygiene' of McDonald's operations and that of its
    56        suppliers.  It is widely acknowledged amongst practitioners
    57        in food hygiene, and a view which I hold myself, that the
    58        conduct of staff in undertaking operational procedures has
    59        much greater influence on the real hygiene of a food
    60        business than the conditions in which the food is produced.