Malicious Food Tampering vs. Stupid Food Thieves

[Shalom]

May be jumping in late on this...

I am strictly Kosher in my diet.

As such, it would never even occur to me to attempt to eat food of unknown origin. If I don't know for a fact that it's Kosher, as attested by a known certification on the packing, or prepared by someone I know and trust has the same level of observance as I, it's simply not an option.

If I were to randomly swipe someone's lunch, and it turned out to have bacon in it, I'd have nobody to blame but myself. I'm not going to start ranting at them "You condemned me to Hell with your filthy pigmeat!!" That's on me and not anybody else.

I'd imagine anyone who seriously has life-threatening food allergies would, or should, feel the same way. If you don't know the source, and don't know what's in it, keep-a you cotton-pickin' hands off. And if they don't, that's on them and nobody else.

(Not to mention that stolen food is by definition going to send you to Hell whether it's Kosher or not. There's an old joke that maybe doesn't translate, but here it is: someone was stealing the milk that one employee was leaving in the fridge to have for his coffee. Putting a note on it with his name and "Please don't touch" didn't help. Puting on a note that said "Cholov Stam", did.)

(explanation: all cow's milk in the USA is kosher; this is called "cholov stam" or plain milk. Some people are more strict with themselves and use only "cholov yisroel" which basically means that the milk was never out of sight of an orthodox Jew unless tagged with a tamper-evident seal. The joke is, he doesn't mind stealing, but he won't use "cholov stam".)

As it happens, my daughter is allergic to milk protein, so I'm familiar with the concept. Thank $DEITY it's not a life-threatening allergy, but having stomach-aches for ten hours followed by vomiting is still not fun. This is easier to deal with when you're Kosher than it might be otherwise, because "milk-containing-products" is already a category that needs to be checked for by the Kosher consumer on a regular basis.

[wolfie]

Going "peanut butter erry day" is just the same as bringing in a bacon sandwich when your thief is Vegan, Jewish or Muslim, HR would laugh at them if they complained about the fact that you were not bringing in Kosher, Halal or Vegan meals when you are neither, it's only an issue if you (negatively) bring their religion into it.
I say negatively in brackets as I am not sure where anyone would stand if they say "if bringing in bacon is the only way to guarantee a sandwich, then I'm all for the pork."

But bringing in bacon is NOT the only way to guarantee a sandwich - and ham and swiss on rye is delicious.

[s_stabeler]

It should. However, if you already have a food thief... As I said though, it's NOT mandatory- and lack of such doesn't automatically make you liable if anything does happen- it's more like making it obvious the thief was simply dumb.

[Mr Hero]

I still maintain that the ample warning on the container should be the owner's name prominently displayed. That there is enough to communicate that the food is intended for one person and one person only.

[s_stabeler]

I think a good general rule is that IF the allergen was added specifically because of the thief, it's unacceptable. ESPECIALLY "hidden" allergens, assuming they are deliberately introduced. ( that is, conceal PBJ in a ham sandwich? yeah, that's unacceptable. Baker happened to use peanut oil in making the bread? fine. You got careless at home, and a bit of PBJ got in the sandwich? fine.) Why? because it certainly makes it look like the intention is to trick the thief into eating the allergen.

in short, it comes down to intent. If the allergen is added because of the thief, it's unacceptable. I would recommend adding a label ( along the lines of "WARNING! Contains X" where X is the allergen) if your lunch contains the allergen in question, but it's not mandatory. It's a CYA, basically, in that you can say the thief had ample warning of the allergen.

[Ginger Tea]

Also, someone mentioned "hidden" allergens (oils, little bit of peanut butter under the ham, etc., as opposed to blatant allergens like a PBJ sandwich) as clear evidence of intent to harm rather than deter. However, with hidden allergens, if someone does a bit of planning including the use of a "cutout", they could get away with it (i.e. introduce reasonable doubt).

I originally had a trace element of peanut butter in ham as a 'bad' thing, but I retracted that as I found plausible ways it could be introduced in prep.

Yes one could add a small amount that is not visible intentionally, but the employee could claim that he made two sandwiches that day, one for today one for tomorrow.

Both were cut with the same knife last used on the peanut butter sandwich and as it is a home made sandwich they would not have to abide by food hygiene standards or cross contamination practices.

Both were sealed in a brown bag and they took one not knowing if it was the ham or the peanut butter, it didn't matter which as both would be eaten regardless.

When asked by the management or police they could genuinely say "I didn't know what sandwich I brought in today out of the two I made last night, but I am guessing I picked up the ham one, that or he wilfully bit into a PBJ."

Or, "Well yesterday was PBJ so today would be the ham one I made at the same time." and not even consciously realise that some of the peanut made its way onto the cut edge.

When you don't have to worry about cross contamination or allergens, food prep at home can be as neat or messy as you like (so long as you clean up your mess and don't leave it for a house mate), make a nutella sandwich, lick the knife, decide to make another one dip the knife back in, it's my jar of Nutella it lives in my room not a cupboard so no one can complain should they see me dipping a finger into it, they might think its disgusting but I am not doing this to communal food.

It's like swigging milk from the bottle, if you are out of milk would you grab your housemates gallon jug knowing their mouth has been all over it and perhaps some splash back? Some might not be bothered, others would be repulsed enough to go to the shops or do without.

When there was a family living in this house (parents in attic two kids 8-10 in the smallest bedroom) you would occasionally see them standing on the kitchen table, bit ikky, but I didn't do food prep there or use it much in general, yet one housemate laid out some bread right on the table and did his sandwich, half hour previously there could have been a child's bare, sweaty sock or dirty shoe clad foot on there.
Most sensible people would use a plate or a chopping board, not a shitty looking table that belonged on a bonfire. So it's not the kids fault if the bread picked up trace amounts of dog shit (yes they shouldn't be on the table but they were kids) if you don't bother using a well known barrier to such things like a chopping board, or you know a table that didn't look like it belonged on or salvaged from a bonfire.

Back on topic.
Had the scenario panned out differently in prep, it would still be hard to prove if that same size smear along the cut edge of the first wasn't actually 'planted' under some ham someone says they made two and brought it in blind, are they going to look in your fridge at home for the PBJ to see if you did indeed make two and cut them at the same time.

If nothing had been said that could lay suspicion of malice I would just chalk it up to loosing at fridge roulette, I would take them at their word that they made two at the same time, either having already consumed the peanut butter the day previously or set aside for tomorrow, as I myself have licked the knife and dipped it back into the jar or even a different flavour, cut two different sandwiches with the same 'dirty' knife and a whole host of things in the kitchen that would fail me if I basic food hygiene courses were mandatory in the home as well as the food industry.

Edit:

what about scenario 3: "Since they have a peanut allergy, i'll bring a pbj. when they see that's what my sandwich is, they will not eat it."

Without being weapons grade stupid, I think most stolen PBJ's end up in the bin once they open the bag and find out they cant eat it.

Edit:
What I take issue with the most in this is that in the example the thief is
A> Known
B> Known to have an allergy
C> Ongoing
D> Targeting the same person or a select few (optional)

That means even disregarding B, what has the office been doing about the issue? Is it the boss who's just going to say "Fuck you" or maybe sack you for 'reasons' some time later?
If it isn't then HR/Boss/Whom ever should go to the hospital to get their head removed from their arse.

Some might use B as a deterrent, if they go "peanut butter erry day" they are not going out to harm anyone, if the thief finds a PBJ one would think they would just throw it out, if they target one person daily, well after a week of throwing out PBJ's or other you would have to be blind to not see the peanuts sandwiches, they are hoping that they would see that they are not going to get anything and give up, allowing them to return to some more variety.

Going "peanut butter erry day" is just the same as bringing in a bacon sandwich when your thief is Vegan, Jewish or Muslim, HR would laugh at them if they complained about the fact that you were not bringing in Kosher, Halal or Vegan meals when you are neither, it's only an issue if you (negatively) bring their religion into it.
I say negatively in brackets as I am not sure where anyone would stand if they say "if bringing in bacon is the only way to guarantee a sandwich, then I'm all for the pork."

[siead_lietrathua]

Scenario 1: "If the thief is who I think it is, they're going to get a nasty surprise one of these days - they're playing peanut roulette if they take my lunch"

Scenario 2: "This President's Choice Thai sauce is delicious! I'm going to be using it a lot".

what about scenario 3: "Since they have a peanut allergy, i'll bring a pbj. when they see that's what my sandwich is, they will not eat it."

that's close to scenario 1, in the sense that they are bringing it because the thief has an allergy, but they do not intend for the thief to eat it. it's supposed to be a deterrent, not a punishment. but how, as an observer, could we tell the difference between scenario 1 and 3? other than taking their word for it.

[wolfie]

A few pointers: In the hypothetical case that's been brought up repeatedly (prime suspect in food theft is known to be allergic to peanuts), someone publicly stating that they'll be putting peanut products in their lunch isn't necessarily a threat.

Scenario 1: "If the thief is who I think it is, they're going to get a nasty surprise one of these days - they're playing peanut roulette if they take my lunch"

This is clearly a threat, since the motive for including peanuts is to harm the suspected thief.

Scenario 2: "This President's Choice Thai sauce is delicious! I'm going to be using it a lot".

While the suspected thief might interpret it as a threat, the stated motive (something they enjoy eating - and a reasonable person would conclude that a sauce sold for use on food products is a valid thing for someone to enjoy eating, and therefore put on their food) is a legitimate reason to make the addition to their lunches. Management would be on VERY thin ice if they took action against Thai Sauce Person.

Also, someone mentioned "hidden" allergens (oils, little bit of peanut butter under the ham, etc., as opposed to blatant allergens like a PBJ sandwich) as clear evidence of intent to harm rather than deter. However, with hidden allergens, if someone does a bit of planning including the use of a "cutout", they could get away with it (i.e. introduce reasonable doubt).

Scenario: Suspected Thief is found dead, partially-eaten sandwich in hand, empty lunch bag with Frequent Victim's name on it nearby. FV has not made any threats, but forensic evidence finds traces of peanut oil in the (homemade) bread. Sounds like a clear-cut case, doesn't it?

BUT FV has a Baker Friend who makes a delicious multi-grain bread. FV's story is that BF has never mentioned the use of peanut products in the bread. BF's story is that FV has never mentioned food theft at the office, and since on various occasions he's seen all members of FV's family eating snack food that contained peanuts, he didn't see fit to mention the use of peanut oil since anyone eating the bread he gave FV wouldn't have problems with peanuts. So long as they keep their stories straight, any case falls apart due to the lack of provable intent. Person who knew about the peanuts didn't know about the food theft, and person who knew about the food theft didn't know about the peanuts. The absence of threats on the part of FV is the key - if they had made threats (as opposed to a general "WTF?" rant on finding their lunch missing again), intent could be implied.

[s_stabeler]

readthe darwin awards sometime (I don't know if its the "official" site for them, but it's got some good stories. In short, yes there are.

[Ginger Tea]

Considering people in this thread have more-or-less said they don't care about a food theif getting an allergic reaction...

Well as no one has outright said that their employer has banned allergens for lunch we are free to eat what we please.

If I was in a restaurant and someone at the table next to me is talking about their vegan lifestyle, then ordered something I knew had dairy in it I would not correct them, more so if it's obvious for example Macaroni and Cheese.
Why not but in? none of my business. If you are vegan you should know what to NOT order.

If I was the waiter and overheard the vegan conversation I would.
But when I don't know you, not my problem and as it's veganism not allergens you were talking about what do I care what you eat?

I've read too many stories where someone orders something not vegan then gets all pissy because of their mistake, how did you NOT know eggs weren't vegan.

You want to eat a double bacon cheese burger and say how much of a great vegan you are, fine go ahead, those you are talking to will look at you as if you are odd.

We're discussing allergies not veganism.

True, but if some vegans can't even order vegan meals for themselves, then those with deadly allergies should know better right? Right?

If you have a nut allergy what the fuck are you doing buying a snickers? Maybe they are not that stupid, but I am still baffled as to how and why someone with a potentially fatal allergy would just eat any old food.

As this is a long thread I can't be bothered to check how many cases of genuine allergic co workers actually played fridge roulette compared to just a hypothetical co worker.

If I could die or end up very sick due to something insignificant to the person who bought the sandwich isn't affected by but I have no proof until I bite into it that it is there, then why would I risk my own health?

People have posted that they have food allergies and have to steer well clear of pot luck meals and have to bring their own food to such gatherings, possibly feeling bad as they have to refuse every meal offered to them. But if asked, I couldn't tell you if the dye one poster is allergic to is present in a sauce I used, not without going back home to look, which I wouldn't do.

In that case it's better safe than sorry.
"I don't know."
"Sorry but I cant risk it."
"I understand that, maybe there is something else here."

Should this hypothetical co worker have the dye allergy and asks the questions about "does it contain X?" and still eat it when told "I dunno." It's on them, more so if they do not ask if it contains X.

Not all allergens are visible like a slice of lemon on a fish or a PBJ, so just because you can't see anything 'nasty' doesn't mean it isn't there if its something uncommon.

TL;DR

This thought exercise relies on you believing that there is someone with a near fatal allergy who has no regard for their own health as they will eat anything found in the fridge.

My brain breaks down at that point, are people that stupid when it comes to life threatening reactions?

[s_stabeler]

not exactly- I was more warning him that the threat would be excessive to actually do. Considering people in this thread have more-or-less said they don't care about a food theif getting an allergic reaction...

[siead_lietrathua]

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure most people in intensive care ...(and con't)

are we supposed to take hyperbole seriously now? i doubt Eltf would actually put someone in the hospital over a sandwich.

[s_stabeler]

I'd still say that it'd be immature at best, Ginger Tea. ESPECIALLY for a case where there could be genuine confusion about the status of the food in question. (the immaturity would be in the threat to chuck the food if your lunch disappears. Actually doing it would be worse)

eltf177, good luck when you're fired. ( yes, possibly even for the threat) Threatening to put somebody in intensive care over stealing food? Frankly, I hope I never end up working with you, because that is horrific. ( I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure most people in intensive care end up dying of whatever out them there. So a threat to put someone in intensive care is functionally a death threat. Considering that it certainly requires injuring someone badly enough that they could easily die of it...)

[Ginger Tea]

TBH it was 2 years ago when the scotch egg incident happened, so although I do recall being not very nice in my choice of words, the actual status of the food is hazy, yes I may have ditched the food, or I may have just felt like doing so.

It was 2 years ago, so the details are not clear. But it was food that the company didn't have to dish out, we could have just thrown all use by today/tomorrow food out and never serve hot lunches forcing people to bring their own in.

Some days I had nothing but scraps on the today/tomorrow shelf and disgruntled co-workers said why didn't I use anything from todays leftovers, well if its a leftover, chances are one of the drivers would come back saying "I need 2 X's" and I cant really say "sorry shit out of luck there I fed them to the staff."

Nothing I ditched, if I really did do so, belonged to anyone, it's not as if I found my sandwich gone so I took all lunch bags out and threw them away. These people were finishing their shifts in 2 hours, yet I was doing 5am-job done as the late person wasn't coming in that day and I was asked the day before to carry on, had I been asked to stay to cover, there wouldn't have been a scotched egg to begin with as I didn't stop by the 24hour Tesco's on my way in. Shop bought food was due to the fact we had to fend our ourselves come break.

[eltf177]

i don't get this idea that i'm saying reality should be some perfect world. i'm saying if there is a thief, they should be dealt with as a thief, with appropriate punishment from authority.

This. But if authority isn't going to do anything then the kid gloves are off. No food tampering, but a suggestion from myself and my equally angry coworkers that he's going to have no need of our food when he's in the hospital intensive care unit.

I'll give management a chance to do something first, but they'd better take real action...