Malicious Food Tampering vs. Stupid Food Thieves

[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."

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.