The Supreme Food Court at the CIA (The Culinary Institute of America) has a full menu of cases this session. They include the following noteworthy disputes and their abstracts:

When gastronomic disputes arise, the CIA proves that although justice may be blind, it doesn’t have to be tasteless.

1. Kevin Bacon v. Meat Loaf – Case to decide who’s the Alpha Carnivore
2. Pringles v. United States Sawdust Corporation – A case in which US Sawdust seeks recompense or at least some credit for providing half of the ingredients in Pringles “Potato” Chips.
3. Mr. Coffee v. Mrs. Butterworth – One glorious night of frolicking on the kitchen counter between a sweetly seductive Mrs. Butterworth and a highly caffeinated Mr. Coffee led to the birth of their little Baby Ruth. The question now arises: Who’s going to pay for Baby Ruth’s support? Until the case is resolved Baby Ruth has been placed in the temporary custody of Aunt Jemima – which in this case is located on the 2^nd shelf of the cabinet nearest the sink.
4. Venus Fly Trap v. Flies – Should be an open and shut case
5. Yam v. Sweet Potato – Case to decide if they’re the same vegetable – you never see them in the same produce section at the same time. The court expects Plant Psychologists to give expert testimony on schizophrenia in root vegetables.
6. Pepperidge Farms Mint Milano Cookies v. Alyssa Milano – Pepperidge Farms alleges “Unconscious copyright infringement” on the part of Ms. Milano. In order to eliminate further confusion between its cookie and Ms. Milano, Pepperidge Farm seeks to compel Ms. Milano to rename herself either Alyssa Marzipan or Alyssa Xanthan Gum. Ms. Milano’s is reluctant to comply stating, “Who’s the boss?” Tony Danza has filed a friend of the court brief stating: “I speak for millions of Americans when I say that there is no confusion here. If you put the two of them side by side there’s only one of them you’d want to eat.”
7. The Estate of Clarence Birdseye v. The People of the United States – The estate of Clarence Birdseye contends that the idea of freezing ffood or future consumption was theirs and theirs alone. Consequently they seek redress in the form of a 1¢ royalty on all food items frozen after 1953. Critics believe the case doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell. Birdseye lawyers claim it does have a snowball’s chance in a freezer.
8. Faberge Eggs v. Egg Beaters – Faberge Eggs believes the existence of Egg Beaters is an affront to all hard-shelled ova everywhere.  Faberge wonders why marauding gangs of Egg Beaters are still allowed to roam the dairy case with impunity as they wantonly crack shells and otherwise beat up on their oval brethren is an outrage. They find this brand of “egg on egg” violence unacceptable. “These are not good eggs,” says an attorney for the firm of Humpty and Dumpty. Faberge Eggs seek redress in the form of having all Egg Beaters confined to their cartons until breakfast time, when they’ll have their contents poured onto a skillet and fried rigid till they’re no longer a threat to anyone. In its defense, Egg Beaters lamented, “It’s not the way we’d choose to behave, it’s just the way General Foods makes us.”
9. Pillsbury Toaster Strudel v. Kellogg’s Pop Tarts – Convenience breakfast food turf battle heats up as Pop Tarts assert its claim as the original toaster pastry. Toaster Strudel’s attorneys intend employ the nuclear option and play the “Eggo Waffle card” if Pop Tarts maintain its exclusive right to dub itself the one and only original toaster pastry. Counsel for Toaster Strudel are incredulous at Pop Tarts duplicity – i.e., “How can Pop Tarts honestly maintain they hold exclusive rights to the ‘toaster pastry’ name when their own company manufactures a similar product – the Eggo Toaster Waffle? It seems Pop Tarts wants to have their waffle and eat it too. We say never. We say Leggo my Eggo.”
10. Honda v. Hyundai (I know not food related, but it was the only court date they could get)
11. Benadryl v. Peanut Farmers of America – Benadryl seeks to neutralize Peanut Farmers’ effort to impose their legumes on an unsuspecting public. Thus far the Peanut Farmers’ lawyers have been tentative in coming out of their shells.
12. Parsnip v. Turnip – This case is being closely watched by the Dirt Farmers of Appalachia, that will determine which tuber possesses the more bodacious ta-tas. This landmark ruling will decide once and forever whether a Parsnip or a Turnip has the best nips. The winner gets the tuber concession at Dollywood.
13. Margarine v. Butter – Margarine seeks a cease and desist order against Butter’s derogatory assertion that: If you think it’s butter, but it’s snot…It’s Chiffon.
14. Darryl Strawberry v. Halle Berry – Case is being watched berry, berry closely.

In summation, I don’t know how nutritious this amuse bouche is, but I do know one thing: It is food for thought.

Comments are closed.