There's all kinds of legal murk with this.

If you don't get a break and you make a mistake that injures or kills you or someone else, the employer is responsible.

If you "don't get" a break, either by force or voluntarily (the reason actually doesn't matter), then many places consider that to be.... For lack of a better description (my brain can't think of one right now): bad working conditions, and illegal.

Even if you voluntarily skip you break/lunch, the thin line between that being fine, or a problem for the company, is whether you want to hire a lawyer and make it a problem or not.

That's liability that they don't want.

I guarantee they couldn't give any less of a shit whether you take your lunch/breaks or not, except for the fact that it could affect them.

I'm thankful for this, because bluntly, otherwise, they just wouldn't give you a break at all. They would put it on the books as you working a 9 hour shift, and taking your lunch at the end of the day, but tell you that you are on an 8 hour shift that has no breaks. Since they can't cover their ass like that, you get an unpaid lunch.

The unpaid part was the compromise to get the legislation passed so they don't subject workers to inhumane conditions. Remember that the government is largely comprised of, or paid for by, businesses and business owners. So if it isn't, at the very least "fair" to business owners, it's not going to pass.