TANYONE who read our report of the nightmare ordeal of food poisoning victim, 21-year-old Stephanie Hawke, of Padiham, who spent seven days in intensive care and needed 10 pints of new blood to fight a mutant strain of the deadly E.coli bug, would be filled with dread at the thought of the same happening to them.
But after the E.coli outbreak in Scotland, which claimed 20 lives three years ago, surely, no reminder is needed of how terrible it can be- and that the utmost must be done to make safe the food we eat.
Yet , despite this manifest necessity - and the appalling consequences of its neglect - amazingly, we find that the East Lancashire food outlet suspected of poisoning Stephanie and at least two others is still quite freely serving meals.
Which outlet is it?
We can't say.
But is it not a dangerous nonsense that public health officials won't?
No-one upholds the rights of anyone to a fair hearing and dispassionate investigation more than this newspaper, but plain common sense demands that when any food outlet is suspected of unleashing a potentially-lethal bacterium like this into the community, consumers should at least be told so that they have the right to choose whether to use it.
But by preventing this disclosure, health officials are both denying them that right and, worse, failing to do all that they can - and should- to protect them. Yet, we are told, this is standard procedure and, in this case, that is designed to ensure maximum co-operation from the staff at the suspected premises.
All the same, this is putting the interests of this business and its staff before those of consumers. And we share the concern today of Community Health Council chairman Frank Clifford that this is a wrong and rash priority. He is absolutely right when he says people not only have a right to know, but also a need to know.
It was in the aftermath of those 20 E.coli deaths in Lanarkshire that the official inquiry called for tighter standards "from the farm to the fork" and demanded an end to the "light touch" approach to the regulations.
But, yet again, we see that the victims at the fork end of the food chain have still to receive the fullest efforts of those whose job is supposed to be protecting them. What dangerous folly!
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article