• DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You would have to prosecute both to make the charge stick. The only way to discover food tampering would be the stealing of the food.

      Also there are perfectly legal modifications that are dickish but don’t constitute tapering. If the ingredients are normally edible without adverse effects, it isn’t tampering. You are allowed to dump a bottle of hot sauce into your coffee creamer. You can absolutely add salt instead of sugar to your homemade pie. You can bring a bottle of Gatorade that has been emptied and refilled with lemon juice.

      You can’t add laxatives or NYQUIL or other items to booby trap your food. Basically you’re not allowed to effect someone’s health with drugs or things that aren’t food

      • Usernameblankface@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, so I can change the taste of the food with spices and substitute lookalike drink that tastes bad, but I cannot add medication, anything inedible, or anything that I know would affect their health (like peanuts if I know the theif is allergic).

      • Deuces@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if the theif turns out to be allergic to hot sauce? Like yeah I didn’t mean to seriously harm them, but I was boobytrapping the food with the expectation of causing some amount of harm. If they sue for the medical bills I’m pretty sure I’m gonna have to pay them and if they press charges I can see that going very bad for me

        • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          What if the theif turns out to be allergic to hot sauce?

          So I can’t put ANY allergens in my food anymore in case someone with an allergy steals it?

          • slazer2au@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No. If someone in your office is dangerously allergic to peanuts, it doesn’t mean you can not bring a pb & j for lunch.

            If your lunches are being nicked and you suspect the person doing it is allergic to nuts, you can not lace your food with nuts knowing they will eat it and potentially harm them.

            It is all about intent.

        • DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If someone is allergic to peanuts or some other ingredient, they take their own life in their hands when they eat food that doesn’t have the ingredients listed. Those people usually carry EpiPens as a safeguard. If one passes away (which happens, though not as often nowadays) there needs to be proof the person was intentionally given something the issuer knew would do harm. It’s really hard to prove, and genuine mistakes happen (parent giving a child a snack with wheat or peanut in it, that kind of thing).

          You would not be liable unless there was proof of intent

        • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          in that case it’s on him to avoid food he’s allergic to. So you’d be in the clear. Unless of course, you’re allergic too. In that case it’s pretty hard to argue that you made it for yourself

        • DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If someone is allergic to peanuts or some other ingredient, they take their own life in their hands when they eat food that doesn’t have the ingredients listed. Those people usually carry EpiPens as a safeguard.

          If one passes away (which happens, though not as often nowadays) there needs to be proof the person was intentionally given something the issuer knew would do harm.

          It’s really hard to prove, and genuine mistakes happen (parent giving a child a snack with wheat or peanut in it, that kind of thing).