Malicious Food Tampering vs. Stupid Food Thieves

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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!

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Well, I've seen a peanut-allergic person constantly steal other people's food from the fridge and break room. I went around with tape and under the tape labeling the owner's name, I put "contains peanuts."

Soon it just became a thing where everyone's lunch would be labeled like that, and nothing was ever stolen again. Thief couldn't risk it.

I would only condone the "bringing peanut including food to stop a peanut-allergic thief" trick if the person LABELED the food as "Owner - CONTAINS PEANUTS." If they STILL steal it and eat it, it is THEIR fault they had the reaction. *shrugs*

[eltf177]

I would only condone the "bringing peanut including food to stop a peanut-allergic thief" trick if the person LABELED the food as "Owner - CONTAINS PEANUTS." If they STILL steal it and eat it, it is THEIR fault they had the reaction. *shrugs*

Of course, most of the time no one knows who the thief is (although there may be strong suspicions/clues), and I have _no_ clue what allergies (if any) my co-workers have. So I see no reason to label what's in my lunch - it's _my_ lunch and you have no right to it.

Food thieves take their chances with allergies or people who like super-hot/super-spicy food...

[s_stabeler]

I see it as a mix of both. Just because there is a food thief, it doesn't mean you should AVOID foods that might give them an allergic reaction. However, if you DELIBERATELY have food that would give the thief an allergic reaction, that is shitty.

and the labelling is to avoid liability if the thief does get an allergic reaction. Plus, it helps further mark your food as definitively yours.

[eltf177]

I see it as a mix of both. Just because there is a food thief, it doesn't mean you should AVOID foods that might give them an allergic reaction. However, if you DELIBERATELY have food that would give the thief an allergic reaction, that is shitty.

This assumes you both know who the thief is and what their allergies/dislikes are. Let's face it, how often does that happen?

and the labelling is to avoid liability if the thief does get an allergic reaction. Plus, it helps further mark your food as definitively yours.

The only label I need is my name. I'm not about to waste time writing down what's in my lunch. My name marks it as _mine_, any claim it was an "honest mistake" goes out the window if they didn't bother to look at the bag before consuming it...

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Honestly, our responses were directly aimed at OP's scenario of "You know who is stealing the food and you know they have XXX allergy, therefore you bring food that HAS that allergen in it."

We get that YOUR food is YOURS. However, if you know someone is stealing it, you know they WILL steal it pretty much everyday, and you HAPPEN to know they are allergic to XX item - bringing a food item that has their allergen in it is basically you specifically trying to get them sick at that point. If you are unsure how serious of a reaction they have, they could very well nearly die.

So if you are PURPOSEFULLY bringing an allergen containing food SPECIFICALLY to get that person sick... in my opinion taking a marker and writing "has peanuts" is a pitiful amount of more effort than taking that marker and writing "Eltf177's food." Except writing the "has peanuts" is far more likely to keep your food safe that just writing your _name_ to say the lunch bag is _yours_.

[s_stabeler]

Also, my point was that it's not acceptable to DELIBERATELY bring in something designed to cause an allergic reaction. Basically, my point was that it is unacceptable to deliberately cause someone an allergic reaction. Do bear in mind that if you deliberately brought in something to cause a food thief to get an allergic reaction, if it turns out the reaction was lethal ( as it can well be) then you are technically guilty of murder.(It counts as poisoning.)

It comes down to motive. Do you want your lunch left alone, or do you want revenge on the thief? If you want your lunch left alone, label it with the allergen. If you want revenge, then don't dress it up as an accident.

[Dreamstalker]

Is there still a need to label with any allergens if there are no known allergies in the workplace and/or all the ingredients in the food are visible? That seems to be going overboard to me...like cans of mixed nuts that have "Allergen warning: contains nuts".

Example: I like Asian food. If I bring some leftovers that contain peanuts, stupid-hot chilies and shellfish or seafood (all potential allergens) and everything is visible in the dish, AFAIK no need to label ingredients as there are no known allergies at work and you can see what's in it. If someone who knows they're allergic to peanuts or shellfish (both items that are visible in the food) eats it anyway just to be a dick...IMO they deserve what happens. Not sure about undiagnosed allergies...shouldn't be stealing food anyway.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, if someone has a serious peanut allergy. IE they have to carry an epi-pen to avoid death. Then its likely the staff would know due to how serious of a threat it is. If someone is just lactose intolerant then no, there's no real cause to share or be aware of said information. >.>

The problem with laying a "trap" as has already been mentioned is that it possibly demonstrates premeditation should the result be serious.

[Andara Bledin]

If your food is properly sealed and labeled, it shouldn't matter what's in it or what anyone else in the building is allergic to.

As has been mentioned several times now, the issue arises from including something for the express purpose of being unpleasant for someone else you have a reason to believe might eat it instead of yourself. Even suggesting that you might do it would set you up for a serious round of shit if anything actually happened, even if you never actually tampered with your own food.

You just don't joke about poisoning people in the workplace in the same way you don't joke about bombs at the airport. It's not enough to just be innocent.