Since the paragraph in question establishes two sets, why explicitly enumerate one set, while relying on inline punctuation for another? This inconsistency sugg

Since the paragraph in question establishes two sets, why explicitly enumerate one set, while relying on inline punctuation for another? This inconsistency suggests that the two kinds of enumerations aren't similar; yet they are. Their intersections define cases where the provision does or does not apply. (EDIT: the accurate term for this is cartesian product.) Explicit is better than implicit, even when the end result is more wordy. There's dozens of ways to rephrase this, but here's one: The overtime provision of this section does not apply in cases when any of the hereby enumerated activities are done to any of the hereby enumerated categories of items. The activities are: (1) canning; (2) processing; (3) preserving; (4) freezing; (5) drying; (6) marketing; (7) storing; (8) packing for shipment; (9) distributing. The categories of items are: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; (3) Perishable foods. Furthermore, there's an entire other line in this same paragraph about egg processing facilities above a certain size. This should be broken out elsewhere.