"jmcquown" wrote:
> "Mark Thorson" wrote
>
> > Banned for life from popular Berkeley market
> > for taking samples. �And he deserves it!

If they're samples why shouldn't someone partake.c'mon, they're
*samples*. duh

> >http://cbs5.com/local/berkeley.bowl.ban.2.823933.html
>
> If the store isn't offering "samples" then eating a couple of pieces of
> fruit without paying for it then calling it "sampling" is tantamount to
> theft, IMHO. �His excuse was he'd gotten some iffy fruit from them in the
> past. �So what? �
>Produce is always iffy.

And that's exactly why a patron has a right to sample produce, and
should... the gamble should always be on the proprietor, never the
patron. Whenever unpackaged, unattended food is openly displayed
legally it's an offering to taste as well as buy. Besides, most
produce department employees when asked will be very happy to provide
samples... more intelligent store managers hire attendants
specifically for providing samples... the psychology behind foisting
samples on patrons is that more than twice as many after sampling will
buy who wouldn't have otherwise because with witnesses they feel
embarrassed not to... sample attendants are trained to specifically
offer samples to patrons shopping with a companion, and especially
when with young children... once a parent hands their kids a few
sample grapes, a cookie, a hunk of cheese, etc. it's a done deal, most
will buy. Samples are excellent bait. Loose unattended fruit is
bait, therefore by definition is meant to be sampled... it's polite to
ask but if no one is nearby to ask then it's perfectly okay to
sample. Whenever you enter a store that is open for business you are
an invited guest, exactly the same as when you visit a friend who has
a bowl of fruit out on the table... it's they who would be rude if
they deny you access.