Intentional Contamination Paper
In considering the circumstances surrounding Oregon's 1984, intentional contamination case; lack of vigilance and complacency among restaurant owners, managers, and employees played a significant role; thus, simplifying the intentional act. With that said, the recommended strategy is enhanced education, training, and dedicated employee observational stationing (salad bar).
Although no solution is foolproof these enhanced safety measures add multiple levels of security aimed at the prevention of future intentional contamination with minimal cost structuring. Meaning, under the administration of the local public health department and supported by both the state and federal public departments they could develop and implement a successful employee
training curriculum designed for this specific threat (Helmuth, 2011). Such curriculum would include identifying risks both internal and external to (e.g. disgruntle employee(s), suspicious behaviors, community contention, threats, etc.). Additionally, local law enforcement could partake in the training in the area of observational surveillance techniques for suspicious behaviors and patterns.
Lastly, monitoring the success of the strategy(s) would fall to the local health department given they would need to approve the curriculum, review employee training records, and engage in unannounced site visits to ensure the presence of dedicated salad bar staffing. Subsequently, this agency is responsible for levying fines for non-compliance related issues. While some establishments may argue added cost for observation stationing; however, the ease in which one can engage in agro-terrorism (food supply and agriculture) is a true and present threat. As such, restaurateurs have an inherent obligation to safeguard the health of their guest. When considering such a position is entry level and the U.S. minimum wage ($7.25 per hour), we are talking about an annual cost in the range of $26,390. The latter is a small price to pay when considering the cost of litigation or worse yet, the loss of one’s business
Although no solution is foolproof these enhanced safety measures add multiple levels of security aimed at the prevention of future intentional contamination with minimal cost structuring. Meaning, under the administration of the local public health department and supported by both the state and federal public departments they could develop and implement a successful employee
training curriculum designed for this specific threat (Helmuth, 2011). Such curriculum would include identifying risks both internal and external to (e.g. disgruntle employee(s), suspicious behaviors, community contention, threats, etc.). Additionally, local law enforcement could partake in the training in the area of observational surveillance techniques for suspicious behaviors and patterns.
Lastly, monitoring the success of the strategy(s) would fall to the local health department given they would need to approve the curriculum, review employee training records, and engage in unannounced site visits to ensure the presence of dedicated salad bar staffing. Subsequently, this agency is responsible for levying fines for non-compliance related issues. While some establishments may argue added cost for observation stationing; however, the ease in which one can engage in agro-terrorism (food supply and agriculture) is a true and present threat. As such, restaurateurs have an inherent obligation to safeguard the health of their guest. When considering such a position is entry level and the U.S. minimum wage ($7.25 per hour), we are talking about an annual cost in the range of $26,390. The latter is a small price to pay when considering the cost of litigation or worse yet, the loss of one’s business