Secondly, concerning orange juice as "not a made lunch as it has no solid part": What about all the pulpy bits? Or if it had ice cubes in it, for that matter?

Concerning "edible": Edible for who? What if someone has a problem with their digestive system which makes certain foodstuffs inedible? Is lunch an objective or a subjective concept? If a horse can eat hay for lunch and a human can't, is hay a lunch for one but not for the other? Or is hay objectively a/not a lunch?

Concerning "the original intents of the consumer were to consume . . the lunch at approximately noon": How approximate is approximate? Shall we say, give or take twelve hours or so? What if one's original intent was to eat something for breakfast but this event was somehow delayed until the conventional lunchtime? Is it possible to eat breakfast for lunch? Is that the correct terminology? Concerning solidity: Would it be fair to say that one cannot drink lunch? What about soup? Or chunky soup if one chews the chunks but spits them out again? (pardon the imagery) Lunch on a hospital drip? Lunch that melts in your mouth (or solidifies in your mouth)?

At this stage, I feel I must clarify that I am not a fanatical supporter of liquid lunch, lunch at any given hour, subjective lunch, objective lunch, discrimination or lack thereof between humans and horses or any other non-humans with regard to lunch or lunch for specified persons.

I merely seek to assure that our definitions are endowed with the utmost precision; so that there can be no dispute amongst us in the increasingly unlikely event that we manage to agree on what constitutes a made lunch.