Actually I already thought of that, and figured that (A) if you account for these breaks it shouldn't significantly change the numbers, (B) they'd probably "work" 12 hours, though not continuously, so they might work four, break for 15, work four, break for half an hour to eat, and work four more. (C) keeping it mind that its probably not siginificant and may even be accounted for by point B, it would unnecessarily detract from the letter to the editor. (D) Originally I accounted for minimum wage, which would have them working exactly 7 hours, 41 minutes, 30 seconds, and certainly not working or being paid for breaks during that time. I then actually looked into labour laws (yes, yes I did), and turns out that min wage doesn't apply to "Local hand harvest laborers who: commute daily from their permanent residence; are paid on a piece rate basis in traditionally piece-rated occupations; and were engaged in agriculture less than thirteen weeks during the preceeding calendar year." (E) This last point I find very regrettable and I think min wage ought to apply to them, but the point of my argument remains: that tomato harvesters are NOT working in extraordinary inhumane conditions (F) and so with a thunderclap of comprehensive consideration and research I respectively declare your "fatal flaw" reduced to smoking craters, have a nice day.