Malicious Food Tampering vs. Stupid Food Thieves

[eltf177]

Any food thief who takes something that isn't their's deserves what they get, especially if everyone carefully labels their items to avoid any possibility of grabbing someone else's lunch.

No, a deliberate trap is something wrong. OTOH I love peanut butter, and if a food thief allergic to it steals my sandwich that's their problem, not mine...

That being said, the management at any place where this happens regularly needs to come down on this kind of thing, and come down hard -- this is, at the very least, a form of harassment, especially if one specific person is the victim of one other specific person on a regular basis. Someone who steals "little things" could very well feel that they can steal more important things, as well. More importantly, the safety issue could be reversed. If the victim has a specific diet (such that they can't just grab food out of the vending machines), is an insulin-dependent diabetic, et al, not having the food they need when they need it could put THEM in the hospital.

This needs to happen. Ignoring chronic food theft is a slap in the face to hard-working employee's who have better things to do than have to shell out money they may not have and waste time they may not have to go out and buy lunch which may not be what they want/be a problem due to medical conditions because some assh*le stole their lunch or drink. At the very least the food thief needs to reimburse their victims and get at least some unpaid days off, up to even getting fired if the scale of theft is large enough!

[HYHYBT]

The issue is, CAN one be 100% sure

And the answer is, no, you can't. Generally, reactions get worse, and you don't know how much worse the next one will be until it happens.

[Andara Bledin]

Don't tamper with your food with the foreknowledge that it has a decent chance of being eaten by someone other than you.

Not only is it nearly as morally wrong as eating someone else's food, it would be considered premeditation, legally, and could get your ass in prison for manslaughter if things went all the way downhill.

It's not worth it.

If you're really worried about people stealing your food, just get a locking lunch bag. Sure, you shouldn't have to do that, but it'll keep your food ready for when you want to eat it and keep you on the right side of both the law and moral compass.

[EricKei]

Well -- if someone knew that the allergy-suffering thief would only have a mild reaction, such as itching and discomfort from the food, yeah, that feels like something that would be reasonable, and it would hopefully discourage them from pulling that shit in the future. The issue is, CAN one be 100% sure (I honestly don't know, as I don't have any food allergies that I know of)? -- If, on the other hand, their reaction could potentially be something like trouble breathing, or something else that could potentially put them into the hospital or even kill them: at that point, yeah, I think our hypothetical "guy who just wants to eat his own food" has gone too far. While people have the right to protect their own property, it is no longer an equal-sum game at that point, "an eye for an eye" -- if someone's life or livelihood could be threatened, it becomes more like "an arm for a paper cut."

That being said, the management at any place where this happens regularly needs to come down on this kind of thing, and come down hard -- this is, at the very least, a form of harassment, especially if one specific person is the victim of one other specific person on a regular basis. Someone who steals "little things" could very well feel that they can steal more important things, as well. More importantly, the safety issue could be reversed. If the victim has a specific diet (such that they can't just grab food out of the vending machines), is an insulin-dependent diabetic, et al, not having the food they need when they need it could put THEM in the hospital.

On the universally-harmful "trap" food -- bad idea no matter what. No telling what the eventual consequences could be, and it could easily end up harming someone innocent (e.g., thief steals food, takes a bite and doesn't like it, then shares "his" food that he didn't eat with some CWs)

[TheHuckster]

In a workplace I've been at before that had someone with celiac disease, just to reduce the risk of any accidents, I always very clearly labeled my food, and only after asking the coworker if there are any other precautions I should heed. Others did the same, and there were never any incidents.

If you put the peanut laden food in the refrigerator with the intent of having it discovered by a rather stupid allergic food thief, then I'd have a hard time siding with you, especially if it was a life threatening incident, which peanut allergy attacks often are. That greatly exceeds "petty revenge" if you ask me, and could even cross the line into criminal.

No matter what, if the reason you put the bag in the fridge is to see if the coworker "falls for it" and goes to the emergency room, then you've just demonstrated measures that, IMO, are just as bad as tainting it with a poison.

There's also the possibility someone might accidentally eat someone else's food (It happened to me on either side once or twice) hence my labeling and precautions above.

[Mr Hero]

I watched Dumb and Dumber with my nephews on Thanksgiving. There's a part in the movie where Lloyd spikes Harry's drink with a laxative. This got me thinking of a few posts on CS where the subject of food tampering came up, and this is an issue I've wanted to post about for a long time. I'd like to hopefully discuss the topic without condoning malicious variations.

We all agree that spiking a SC or Co Irker's food, no matter how sucky they are, is wrong. The food was intended to be consumed by that person.

But let's say a known food thief is allergic to peanuts. You are not. You bring your food to work and you purposely include an ingredient with peanuts to protect your food. You label your food and put it in the fridge. Food thief picks your food anyways and suffers the consequences. Who is at fault? My argument in this case is the food thief had it coming. Karma hit pretty hard.

Or in this situation: You bring in food with the intent to get back at the food thief. You have no plans to eat it, and is in fact harmful to anyone who eats it, and so it's not intended for anyone. It only serves as a trap. You put your name on the container, then lay the trap for some poor thief to find. In this case, I would argue that this is almost as bad as spiking someone's food because not even the owner intends to eat it.

I'm very interested in where people draw the line. In discussing this, I hope we're not encouraging intentional food tampering and petty revenge.