from the enjoy-your-burrito dept
From there, GOOD author Amanda Hess dives deep into the debate, and I can't emphasize enough how worthwhile it is to read the whole thing, but here is a snippet to whet your appetite:
Can a food become a sandwich simply by calling itself a sandwich? Does an open-faced sandwich constitute a sandwich, despite the lack of sandwiching employed in its construction? If so, is bruschetta a sandwich? Buttered toast? Pizza?It goes on from there, and just gets better, including conflicting governmental definitions of just what constitutes a sandwich, and even under whose regulations sandwiches fall ("a sandwich built with two slices of bread is controlled by the FDA; only an open-faced sandwich lies within the USDA's purview"). Hess apparently reached out to notable "experts" on sandwiches -- and at least one burrito expert -- none of whom seem to fully agree on the sandwichness of a buritto.
What if you fold the pizza in half? Must the unifying exterior item be split in two in order to constitute a sandwich? Is a hot dog a sandwich? A submarine roll split in the middle, but with a hinge still hanging on? Is an omelete a sandwich?
A note on methodology: Is it necessary to consume the sandwich with one's own two hands? If one were to douse a sandwich in gravy, would it neutralize the sandwich, converting it into nothing more than a bread-based entree?
If we'll accept a hinge in a sandwich, what about a filling that's encased on two sides? On all sides? Is a kolache a sandwich? A pasty? A corn dog? A calzone? An egg roll? A dumpling? A pop tart? Is a wrap a sandwich?
Is a burrito a sandwich?
As I said, it's an amusing and absolutely worthwhile read, but it also highlights a key point: something that seems simple, when tossed out in normal conversation, can often become very complex under the law. We see this all the time with things we write about. Take, for example, copyright law. People who favor stricter copyright law, seem to think that it's easy to extend copyright law without it negatively impacting creation or innovation. They say things like "infringement isn't free speech" and "how can company X not know that content Y is infringing?" Yet, under the law, this is a lot more complex. Copyright claims can pull down non-infringing content, and that's where things get tricky, and what may seem "obviously" infringing in some cases, often isn't so obvious at all. Similarly, with stories about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the law was put in place to deal with computer hacking. It was specifically about "unauthorized access." Yet, over time it's been twisted and changed to mean all sorts of things, including companies charging employees under the act for doing something personal on a computer -- because it's not "authorized."
In some ways, this is a defense of the need for lawyers -- even if they can be easy targets to hate. In a world where you can spend so much time arguing over the sandwichness of a burrito, there's a need for lawyers. But, it's more a warning about thinking that passing new laws and interpreting them is "simple," and that the resulting laws will not be abused in dangerous ways. This is why we're so concerned about many of the legal changes that come from certain industries, where they're always presented in a simple and straightforward manner, without any concern for the eventual unintended (or sometimes sneakily intended) consequences.