Day 105 - 16 Mar 95 - Page 05

     
     1        your case and to show that due diligence had been observed.
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:  So, if companies can demonstrate due diligence to
     4        the satisfaction of the court then any, for example, food
     5        poisoning which results -- let us start again from another
     6        angle:  If there is, for example, something like 30,000
     7        cases of Salmonella poisoning a year, yes, something like
     8        that, something in that region, reported?
     9        A.  That is the number in broad terms, so far as the
    10        statistics are accurate, but I can agree with that figure
    11        for the purposes of argument.
    12
    13   Q.   As you know, and we know, it is impossible to eradicate
    14        Salmonella, for example, from chicken products, or has been
    15        found to be impossible to eradicate them up to now
    16        uncooked.
    17        A.  That is getting near to being accurate.  Research goes
    18        on continually, but I would not disagree with what you say.
    19
    20   Q.   For example, it has been admitted by McDonald's that 25 per
         cent of their raw meat products, at least, raw chicken
    22        products, will have Salmonella in.
    23        A.  I have to say that -----
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Try and keep on your thread.  Come back to
    26        that if need be.
    27        A.  I have to dispute that figure.  I am not trying to
    28        interrupt your flow, but it could vary wildly from one
    29        suggested figure of 25 per cent.
    30
    31   MR. MORRIS:  I am only giving to you the figure given by Mark
    32        Pattison.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Keep to your original thread.
    35
    36   MR. MORRIS:  So, the due diligence defence would not prevent
    37        there being a risk of food poisoning from products, would
    38        it?
    39        A.  No.
    40
    Q.   Whether or not the company is at fault or not, as far as
    42        the customer is concerned, it is still a risk, if there is
    43        a risk?
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is pretty obvious, is it not?
    46
    47   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The Act is concerned with criminal liability,
    50        not just cause and effect. 
    51 
    52   THE WITNESS:  Could I add that there would not be a prosecution 
    53        for causing food poisoning.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No. There is no offence in the Act to cause
    56        food poisoning, or did sell food which caused food
    57        poisoning?
    58        A.  No.
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:  You mentioned E.coli 0157: H and you said that