(no subject)
Aug. 17th, 2006 02:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
electriclandIn amidst the Great "Is Pluto A Planet Or Not?" Debate come vestiges of everyone's old favourite bit of trivia, "A Tomato Is A Fruit, Not A Vegetable!"
This dogmatic statement tends to get me far more irritated than it really warrants. (Apparently I'm not alone, and parties on all sides of the question can take this to extremes.) For the record, I would like to state my position, which Oxford sets out far more eloquently than I ever have: It is too a vegetable, but it's a fruit as well. More precisely, yes, botanically a tomato is a fruit; it develops from the ovary at the base of the flower and contains the seeds of the plant. However, botanically there is no such thing as a "vegetable," so it's a bit disingenuous to use the botanical definition of a fruit to say that a tomato isn't something that, botanically, doesn't exist. In addition, if you're going to go around claiming tomatoes as fruits, why are you leaving out squash, green beans, cucumbers, and walnuts?
In my view, fruit is for dessert. Vegetables are for everything else. The distinction can get a bit hazy: see for example sweet potato pie and rhubarb, or orange segments in salad. But don't you go telling me a tomato isn't a vegetable. In return, I'll be happy to concede that it's a fruit.
I learned while researching all this that there is actually a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the matter. (They said it was a vegetable.) I suspect this is where the intense interest in the status of the tomato as opposed to, say, the green bean originates.
For the win, though, I would like to nominate the state of Arkansas, which according to Wikipedia "takes both sides by declaring the 'South Arkansas Vine Ripe Pink Tomato' to be both the state fruit and the state vegetable in the same law, citing both its botanical and culinary classifications." A set of Solomons come to judgement.
This dogmatic statement tends to get me far more irritated than it really warrants. (Apparently I'm not alone, and parties on all sides of the question can take this to extremes.) For the record, I would like to state my position, which Oxford sets out far more eloquently than I ever have: It is too a vegetable, but it's a fruit as well. More precisely, yes, botanically a tomato is a fruit; it develops from the ovary at the base of the flower and contains the seeds of the plant. However, botanically there is no such thing as a "vegetable," so it's a bit disingenuous to use the botanical definition of a fruit to say that a tomato isn't something that, botanically, doesn't exist. In addition, if you're going to go around claiming tomatoes as fruits, why are you leaving out squash, green beans, cucumbers, and walnuts?
In my view, fruit is for dessert. Vegetables are for everything else. The distinction can get a bit hazy: see for example sweet potato pie and rhubarb, or orange segments in salad. But don't you go telling me a tomato isn't a vegetable. In return, I'll be happy to concede that it's a fruit.
I learned while researching all this that there is actually a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the matter. (They said it was a vegetable.) I suspect this is where the intense interest in the status of the tomato as opposed to, say, the green bean originates.
For the win, though, I would like to nominate the state of Arkansas, which according to Wikipedia "takes both sides by declaring the 'South Arkansas Vine Ripe Pink Tomato' to be both the state fruit and the state vegetable in the same law, citing both its botanical and culinary classifications." A set of Solomons come to judgement.
