Supermarkets and food manufacturers have been subjected to blackmail on a number of occasions, usually in the form of contaminating foods, or threatening to do so, and demanding money in exchange for ceasing or refraining from this contamination. Should a supermarket or food manufacturer resist this type of blackmail, or should they negotiate with the blackmailer? Explain.
2006-12-18 04:04:31 · 3 answers · asked by Fashionista 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Its not a black or white issue. It depends on the situation, while its absolutely necessary to guarantee that no contamination of any sort takes place, it is impossible to negotiate everytime. Even if they didn't compel to the blackmaier I think its vital that every threat need to be looked in to. Too risky not to.
2006-12-18 04:24:04 · answer #1 · answered by Silver 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first thing that comes to mind was when someone said that they had tainted one bottle of Tylenol. The effects were huge, even if only temporary.
Should the company negotiate with the people responsible? Well, they should find out what they want. More importantly, the company should turn this kind of threat over to people who are trained to deal with a threat like this. But negotiate? In a situation like this, no...you should never negotiate with terroism, which is what this is. Not an easy call to make, though. In a situation like this, there might be what appears to be a negotiation, where the negotiators buy time to plant something that will help them find the perpetrators.
2006-12-18 12:21:09 · answer #2 · answered by ridge50 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then they should accept the food not negotiate with a blackmailer. Or shelve it indefinitely.
2006-12-18 12:12:12 · answer #3 · answered by Bert 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋