A member of Sainsbury's staff attempted to prevent a woman from buying Cheddar because she appeared pregnant.
The unnamed member of staff was correct that:
- Ms Lehain, as it happens, was pregnant
- The Cheddar in question was unpasteurised
The member of staff was not correct in that:
- Unpasteurised cheese does not present a health risk at Ms Lehain's stage of pregnancy
- It's none of their business what she eats anyway.
Sainsbury's, of course, tried to wriggle their way out of it...
Sainsbury's said it did not have a policy of refusing sale of goods on the grounds that they might be unsuitable for pregnant women.
But it said it did ask staff to make customers aware of any safety concerns.
Let's do a quick thought experiment to see if this is true:
- Would you expect Sainsbury's (or any other store) to warn shoppers buying bacon that regular consumption of it has been linked to a small rise in the chance of cancer?
- Would you expect Sainsbury's (or any other store) to warn shoppers - verbally and forcefully, not merely with labels on the packaging - that the cigarettes or alcohol that they are purchasing have serious health effects?
- Would you expect Sainsbury's (or any other store) to warn shoppers buying kitchen knives that they are sharp, and refuse to sell them to people who (in the flawed assessment of their staff, of course) are insufficiently dextrous?
Quite clearly it's actually because pregnant women are public property. This is hardly the first time that a pregnant (or mistaken for such) woman has been refused service on similar grounds.
(As an aside, I find it interesting that the term "nanny state" can now be applied to entirely private-sector bodies, but of course it's the attitude rather than the actor that's the problem here)
