Malicious Food Tampering vs. Stupid Food Thieves

[Jetfire]

Well a lockable lunch bag wouldn't take much more space than a regular lunch bag. I use a hot/cold bag from Sobeys and keep it at my desk. If I needed to 'lock' it, I could sew a loop on one end, and thread a lock through the zipper and the loop. Sure it would be relatively trivial to break open, but that would leave further evidence and (most importantly) be more noticeable in general than someone opening a bag in the fridge. As is usually the case with robbers, you don't usually need absolute protection; you just need to make it non-trivial so they will instead look for easier prey.

[Ginger Tea]

Darwinism isn't the same as a lethal injection.

We could take every precaution going (aside from the locked lunch boxes as they might not fit in the fridge of your work place) short of banning allergens or food in general forcing the staff to go out at lunch.
We could label food, but if every lunch bag is labelled "Warning may contain ..." then to some its as much of a deterrent as no label at all.

You have a citrus allergy and the salad you took was prepped with lemon juice, its not going to be obvious like a PBJ to a nut allergy co worker. You cant blame Tesco's because someone didn't read the label and had a bad reaction or died, so why should we blame the co worker who bought it to eat?

You would think that someone with an allergy would not do this, but apparently they do.
Then you get the "I'm allergic but not." crowd, I posted about the GF people who then ask where their garlic bread is, a recent post on Not always working would fit this thread.

A customer comes in wanting to return crunchy peanut butter for smooth, has receipt, same brand same price no biggie co worker fetches the right one.

"Just as well I saw it in time, I cant have the crunchy I'm allergic to peanuts."

This left the poster and co worker blinking, should they have stopped the customer and say "You cant eat that if you are allergic to peanuts." or did she mean she just didn't like peanuts in their natural state just like I cant eat prawns whole.

What if she died and it some how trickled back to the store for the staff to find out? Should they be held accountable because someone with a peanut allergy willingly bought peanut butter to eat?

I say no, that's on the same level as cleaning a shot gun barrel with your tongue whilst seeing if you can reach the trigger.

[Hyena Dandy]

While I know there's debate on the forum about the death sentence, I think we can all agree that it's not appropriate for lunch-stealers?

[AccountingDrone]

In all of the places I've worked, anyone who shared the kitchen tended to know eachother, and anytime someone had an allergy or some other issue, they would inform us of it, and we'd take the proper precautions.

All I know is [if I were still working] that if I found out that whomever kept stealing my food has a peanut allergy, my lunch every day would be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and they can go fuck themselves.

[Ginger Tea]

Had this just been about food tampering, we can all agree that it is morally wrong, I have stated enough that if I cant eat it why did I make it.

This thread would have been 1 page long.

Also we can agree that taking peanut oil to a loaf of bread or an apple is wrong, I don't recall ever saying otherwise in this thread.

Adding allergens to a meal because you wanted them is fine.
Adding an allergen so that you wont eat it yourself is wrong. The whole point in bringing in a lunch is to eat it.



I will abide office policy regarding food and where I can store and eat it.

If the company has banned allergens, don't bring them in, if I have to spend time looking at the ingredients compared to almost never like I normally do then so be it, if I buy it and I cant take it to work the next day, I just eat it at home, so long as I have something considered 'safe' I wont go without. If I had to loose out on my hypothetical #82's then so be it.

If I have to label allergens as well as my name, I will.

Hell after this thread even without allergen labels being required I might even do them at home for my first day.

"why does your apple say WARNING this product contains one or more of the following?"
"I printed up a few sheets of name labels and as some people are allergic to stuff I am just covering my arse, but as it's also got my name on it, it's mostly to say 'this apple is mine' so yeah that can of coke is the same. Sandwiches however, no idea what's in em from day to day."

[Ginger Tea]

The only way to avoid the potential for suspicion is to either not give any impression that you would ever do such a thing (don't make threats, don't rant about your lunch having been stolen, etc) or to put in some effort to protect yourself and your reputation in another manner, such as finding a solution with a lock, or not keeping your food in a communal area.

In which way is ranting about the theft of food intent?
Saying "I'm going to get that fucker." or "... and I hope he chokes on it." are threats, but your phrasing implies that I should do nothing more than open the fridge, see its gone and calmly go about my day, informing my higher ups of the theft.

Bull shit, do you honestly think that no one when confronted with the lack off food doesn't say something out loud?

"Mother fucker!"
"What?"
"Just gone to get my lunch and it's not fucking here."
with optional "Again?" or "It's the third time this month."

That's classed as ranting to some people, yet no threats of retribution implied or obvious, just bitching to a 3rd party that your lunch has gone.

If you say "that's not what I mean." then you should have added that there were threats of retribution in those ravings.

Just saying your lunch has gone to the world in general, in a not so polite manner isn't incriminating, it's just stating a fact. Just as saying "That David Fucking Cameron is the fucking leader of the Conservatives." Unless something has happened and it is no longer true, with or without the swearing he is still in fact the leader of the Conservatives.

It's best to get the eff bombs out of the way in the initial reaction than have them slip out when telling your boss it's been the third time this month and you are not best pleased.



With regards to locked boxes, I have said that that may not be a practical solution due to the physical size of the staff fridge and amount of employees expected to use it. Your fridge/staff size might allow for such things, someone else's might not.

So lets assume that "if I could I would, but I can't" is true, you still have options.
Food that doesn't need to be refrigerated.
One of those half litre ice bottles packed in with your now desk bound lockable lunch box.
The fridge and hope for the best that "My name Warning may contain" is enough even if it never contains anything on the list. We've already established they are taking food with no listed ingredients, so if they are willing to bite into something 'blind' is a May contain label an actual deterrent? Yes it worked for one poster here, but may is just another level of risk, they've won fridge roulette before.

Most people don't worry about the way they do their labelling and would just say "may contain." is enough, after all peanuts say "may contain" and not DOES.

WARNING
this product contains one or more of the following items

This states for a fact that at least one allergen is present but not which, is it yours is it safe who knows? Even if it is a lie.

But when there is a stack of labels in the kitchen for staff to use stating such 'facts', they become less facts and more "if everything contains allergens nothing does" to those who are still on a winning streak.

Yes, it would be fucked up if you brought pb&j without any thought of getting a food thief an allergic reaction but people thought you did it because they'd heard you ranting about how you wanted him or her to choke on the food they'd stolen. But that sort of thing does happen, which is why it baffles me that people are so resistant to doing anything proactive to protect themselves from such perceptions.

I've been deviating away from the whole notion that the food thief is known and also aware of their allergy, it's only due to the OP stating said thief was known that this has stayed, had they said they were 80% sure it was Mr Allergen, they could still be 100% wrong.

I've already posted about 'catching them in the act' I don't monitor what you are taking out of the fridge so long as it doesn't look like mine, if someone asks about a Hello Kitty lunch box, that I might recall or know for future use, but I brown paper bag in a fridge full of them (not widely used in the UK that I am aware of), sorry no can do.

And I doubt a company would start locking the fridge and get us all to queue up with our ID's so we get our correct lunch at a specified time.



There is a whole lot you can say about the company due to their perceived inaction, they may have had them in the office and said that it's a lie. I've had bosses outright tell me that because they didn't see it happen nothing will be done, they tend to only do something after the fact.

Best case scenario if they are not going to single out the guy (or if the suspect is unknown but an on going issue affecting many members of staff who may be at your door every lunch with an unhappy face), is to write up a new lunch policy where it is spelt out that you need to label food with your name and allergens, even if said printed label just says "may contain" and list the top 10.
Failure to comply could result in management throwing unlabelled food out during a random inspection, so we are back to apples with may contain nuts gluten etc as the label is an all in one solution.

[Andara Bledin]

there is no way for an outsider to tell if sarah was a sociopath, or if she simply wanted a pbj that day. and that's the thing. how can the outsider tell the difference between intent to harm or intent to dissuade. without being mindreaders, or having a sarah confess.

The intent to eat pb&j or poison bob with pb would be a matter for character witnesses to help sort.

After all, if Sarah made a comment of "damn it, I'm bringing a pb&j sandwich in some time, and we'll see how that asshole likes that," that would be used against her as premeditation.

As for intent to harm vs intent to dissuade, if harm was actually done, then it would just be the difference between whether it was intentional harm or unintentional harm - she'd still be prosecutable and convictable for doing the harm if if could be determined (through witness statements or physical evidence) that she brought in a specific ingredient specifically because Bob was allergic.

And, as the Huckster brought up, just because the evidence isn't enough for a criminal trial, that does nothing to stop the filing of a civil case, nor does it protect Sarah from getting sacked over it.

The only way to avoid the potential for suspicion is to either not give any impression that you would ever do such a thing (don't make threats, don't rant about your lunch having been stolen, etc) or to put in some effort to protect yourself and your reputation in another manner, such as finding a solution with a lock, or not keeping your food in a communal area.

Yes, it would be fucked up if you brought pb&j without any thought of getting a food thief an allergic reaction but people thought you did it because they'd heard you ranting about how you wanted him or her to choke on the food they'd stolen. But that sort of thing does happen, which is why it baffles me that people are so resistant to doing anything proactive to protect themselves from such perceptions.

[TheHuckster]

jumping back to my original fake names, even IF sarah was a sociopath that wanted to kill bob, the food she brought was still in a bag marked "Sarah". so to any other parties, it could simply look like bob took her bag and got unlucky with the pbj. there is no way for an outsider to tell if sarah was a sociopath, or if she simply wanted a pbj that day. and that's the thing. how can the outsider tell the difference between intent to harm or intent to dissuade. without being mindreaders, or having a sarah confess.

The only answer I have is this is why the legal system can't ever be perfect, and some people can get away with murder. It doesn't make it justified or anything. But, because of the presumption of innocence (which I'm not criticizing) chances are Sarah wouldn't even be brought to trial.

Now, there might be a civil trial where Bob tries to sue Sarah for negligence or something else. I really don't know how that would go down, since tort law is very different from criminal law and has its own rules. The presumption of innocence isn't as well-defined and might not even be brought to trial if they just decided to settle out of court and move on.

[siead_lietrathua]

I really don't understand why people feel the need to go through mental contortions to somehow claim that just bringing whatever they bring normally makes them part of this equation.

because we're beyond talking about intentionally poisoning people. we can all agree that trying to kill someone is a douche move, so there's no point in really talking about it.

we've moved on to, basically, outsider perception, where it shifts from black and white to grey.

jumping back to my original fake names, even IF sarah was a sociopath that wanted to kill bob, the food she brought was still in a bag marked "Sarah". so to any other parties, it could simply look like bob took her bag and got unlucky with the pbj. there is no way for an outsider to tell if sarah was a sociopath, or if she simply wanted a pbj that day. and that's the thing. how can the outsider tell the difference between intent to harm or intent to dissuade. without being mindreaders, or having a sarah confess.

now if sarah brought in peanut butter cookies and marked them as 'for bob', that shows clear intent to cause harm.

[Ginger Tea]

If you are not changing your lunch for anyone other than yourself, you are not being discussed in this thread except by injecting yourself into a discussion about something you're not doing.

It's about people who steal food vs people who adulterate their own food to punish them.

It's just that I've had replies that in one breath say "Oh no you are fine carry on." and then in the next paragraph say "You brought food with allergens to work knowing their is a food thief with allergies, you are a bad man."

I even said to you in one such conflicting reply that people can look at the actions of column A and treat them like column B just by the outcome of an act of chance.



That coupled with lack of real reasons for how and why you should get fired outside of damning yourself at every lunch with vindictive talk.

If for example the post about always missing out on lunch on a Wednesday, should I or that person have a structure where it's become ingrained that people know it's Turkey Tuesday and Ham Friday, but no idea Wednesday as it's never been a day when food is there and you knowing you've never eaten on a Wednesday since well you cant remember, have varied the options in the hope of finding something they wont like, even if it means loosing Tuesdays food.

So far all options have gone on a Wednesday regardless of contents and all you are left with is having the same flavour twice, well twice is better than nothing at all and although they've eaten damn near anything, they've never touched PBJ, Turkey, Corned Beef or Ham, maybe its because they don't like them, maybe its because on those days they will only target someone else, well you don't fancy Turkey or Corned Beef two days in a row, or changing the order as it's so ingrained. So it's down to just PBJ and Ham as the contenders for the encore. You have a flash "Why not both?" so ditching the Jam for Ham you have a new Wednesday sandwich.

Now all things considered you would have to be blind or stupid to miss peanut butter in the ham sandwich if you make them like I do.

But as the OP's original thread has stated that the thief is known (though how and why nothing has been done if every Wednesday you go without as does the Monday guy and all the other days of the week) and we are aware they have peanut allergies, some could argue that as it is a given that you might as well not bother on a Wednesday* and that bringing in a peanut based meal is malicious, others would say "even blind pew could see the peanut butter dripping down the edges."

*But doing so just means that someone looses 2 sandwiches a week or if you have more employees a new one becomes the victim, the net result is two people are without lunch.

If you take a peanut butter and ham sandwich because hey it's Wednesday you always take that co workers food and still bite into it when it is plain to see, well you do deserve the Darwin award.



Now same scenario but this time its not home made but Sub of the day or similar daily special at other establishments.
You still buy one on Wednesday and just to tide you over you might even bite into one (I omitted that from the sandwich ones as the size of one you might as well finish it) not many people like eating where others have started, cooties don't faze this guy. But hey you managed to get a bite of it either on the way to work or on your first break before it vanished at lunch.

You've become accustom to the daily specials and one Monday you are given something else entirely, you ask confused and are informed that the sub of the day has changed, it's still one you like, it's just not what you were expecting, so your stomach laments its not getting its usual Monday noms but its getting noms anyway.

Wednesday rolls around and as usual aside from what you managed to scarf at your desk the rest is gone.

Now in both scenarios I kept a routine going, the routine was changed by an outside factor in the 2nd no one but the food thief is in the wrong, the first as I say is up for debate depending on if you see it as "X is vegan so why did you bring Chicken" or "X is vegan so obviously they wont take the Chicken".

As the post I took it from stated that Monday was PBJ I couldn't fall back on my fail safe of it was cut with the same knife when I made 2 days worth of sandwiches so it couldn't even be chalked up to a thin slither on the cut edge.

In both cases there was no talk of retribution, bitching and moaning from all affecting yeah, well if it had been going on for a month and nothing had been done, I think people would be ragging on upper management, just so long as no one said "I hope they like hot sauce" or "They'll get what's coming to them". So I cant side with the any company saying you knew yet still did it you're fired, as they never outlawed the PBJ from Monday.

And if the thief is known and still nothing is done (and lets say the fridge is barely fit for the amount of staff so those lock boxes are still out) there is more chance of one of the 5 being sacked than the thief as if you know he's always taking your food and is unrepentant, well sooner or later you will say out loud "I aint working with no thief." when brought into the office for refusing to help them in their daily tasks, tasks that you are meant to help out in.

"We wouldn't have a hostile work environment if you did your job and told him to pack it in."

the phrase Shape up or ship out springs to mind, but if its ongoing chances are it would be said to you along with "it's only a sandwich you wont starve."

[Andara Bledin]

No shifting here.

But just because the health of someone with allergies is their own lookout, it does not mean that laying a trap for them isn't just as sociopathic.

Both parties can be 100% wrong.

I really don't understand why people feel the need to go through mental contortions to somehow claim that just bringing whatever they bring normally makes them part of this equation.

If you are not changing your lunch for anyone other than yourself, you are not being discussed in this thread except by injecting yourself into a discussion about something you're not doing.

It's about people who steal food vs people who adulterate their own food to punish them.

Both groups are fucking assholes, but while the former are theives, depriving people of their rightful meals, the latter have managed to convince themselves that poisoning a food thief is a reasonable response.

It's not and anyone who thinks it is should probably seek professional help.

[Sarah Valentine]

sorry for a crass comparison, but to me the whole "you should have locked your lunch up" rings too much like "well you shouldn't have worn that skirt". it's victim blaming.

This is pretty much what I was thinking, I shouldn't have to think about making an "acceptable" lunch just in case it gets stolen. I put things together that most people wouldn't think mix well, I like it but it might make someone else sick. It's NOT my fault they're a theiving asshole, they shouldn't steal lunches in the first place so the one at fault is the thief.

[siead_lietrathua]

Exactly. If you have food allergies, make and bring your own food that you know is safe to eat. Taking someone else's food is just plain stupid, bordering on suicidal.

maybe this is why some of the stuff in this thread confuses me. it's like we're shifting diet responsibility from the thief (who needs to monitor their food for an allergy) and placing that burden on his victims (who should not need to monitor themselves on the off chance they are victim-of-the-day).

i mean, lets say i know my lunch typically gets stolen on a wednesday, though it can randomly happen different days, and i know the person has a nut allergy. Monday i bring a PBJ, because i want one, and statistically my lunch is least likely to be the one stolen that day. but it does get taken, and the dude has a reaction.
now, is that my fault, because i was unprepared to have my lunch stolen monday instead of wednesday and didn't prepare something proper for thief to eat. or is it thief's fault for stealing someone else's shit?

sorry for a crass comparison, but to me the whole "you should have locked your lunch up" rings too much like "well you shouldn't have worn that skirt". it's victim blaming.

[XCashier]

If you can end up in hospital or the morgue due to food allergies, then why are you taking food you didn't make in the first place?

Exactly. If you have food allergies, make and bring your own food that you know is safe to eat. Taking someone else's food is just plain stupid, bordering on suicidal.

Even food that is brought in to share isn't always safe. If a coworker brings in muffins, I have to ask what kind they are, as I'm allergic to bananas. Oftentimes, they aren't labeled, so if I don't know, I don't take, even though they're for everybody.

[Ginger Tea]

Whos food was perceived to be tampered with?
Person A's food taken by X or A tampering with X, I agree with X's food being fucked with is bad.
If it was X eating A's food, did they give any indication that they could be up to no good?

Or did it turn into a case of X ate A's food which just so happened to contain an allergen by it being in the recipe?

If they lost their job due to someone getting sick from eating other peoples food and never made a fuss about food going missing, or nothing malicious about revenge, the company can still be open to liability due to an unfair dismissal case.

Now if they had been over heard saying "I'll get that fucker who ever it is." then that's a smoking gun, a smoking gun a random meal isn't.

I can dress up my reasoning's many different ways and still come to the conclusion that I did nothing wrong and it was just an act of fate that that day was the day my food went missing and on that day I picked up one of two blind bags I had made the night before, but as it was cut with a peanut coated knife both were to be considered a risk. But as my work place has no policy regarding labelling allergens or out right banning them and I am meant to be the consumer, I cant bring myself to ever seeing myself in the wrong if I have not been mouthing off with threats of retribution.

Oh and my hypothetical fridge isn't big enough to have too many lockable lunch boxes for the amount of employees so we've been told not to use them and just name our stuff or have stuff on our desks (where we can have our lockable lunch boxes) if they wont go bad at room temperature over the course of the day till lunch.

So if I were to be fired due to a random act of fate I would take the company to court for unfair dismissal seeing as I never made any threats of any kind.

I might have dropped the dismissal angle had you posted this instead of your other posts which boiled down to "it's bad mmmkay." and don't incriminate yourself or if they could prove intent vs random meal choice.

You could have said

look I used to work with this guy who every so often lost his lunch, one day he said if it happened again whom ever did it would regret it.
I asked him if he knew who it was he said he did not, not that it mattered to him.

One day someone went home after not making it to the toilet and shit himself in the hallway, guy laughed at him and said "That'll teach you."

We never found out if he was sick because of what he ate and if what he ate was his own food, but as guy told me and others in ear shot 'they would regret it' we automatically assumed he was behind it and management interviend.

He admitted that he had lost some food and did lace a meal with laxatives and he saw the meal had gone before seeing the other guy in an unfortunate and embarrassing situation.

Because of his actions they saw no other option but to let him go as who knows what could have happened should he had used something that could set off an allergic reaction and we told him this when we fired him hoping he never made the same mistake again at his next job.

They also had the other guy in to talk to him about stealing food which he denied doing and said he had been feeling under the weather all day and just didn't make it to the toilet in time.

They felt that shitting his pants and the resulting embarrassment was enough of a deterrent and let him off with a warning to not do it again.

Only to go all M Knight Shama llama Ding Dong and say that someone else was already in the shitter regretting eating that nutella sandwich.

Edit: though my fictitious example is tampering and not safe for anyone to eat unlike all my 'safe' options I've been using, its the narrative that expands on management that is the main meat and doesn't look like a longer way of saying "It's bad mmmkay". The fact you had a real world example to work from and didn't, your one might have been a tale from my safe pile saying "Well you might think its the perfect crime but ... quote box.

Edit: if those that used hot sauce lauded over the guy, could would they also receive marching orders? No one was injured, but its set a precedent that if he's willing to put hot sauce in his food and laugh at people who eat it he can do something else. As they never said they got the sack for it I am assuming they either never brought it up, all parties including the company agreed to never let it happen again, or it was at a time where rules and laws might not have been written on such things.