TOMATOES: Fruit or Vegetable?

I would say it's a fruit. To me tomatoes have a sweetness to them, especially cherry tomatoes. Their having seeds and all is also a good reason though some vegetables (say cucumbers) also have seeds in them, so it doesn't necessarily make it a fruit.

The only thing I can say that would make me not classify it as a fruit is the fact that we usually cook it with other vegetables, but that doesn't have anything to do with its nature.

However, I haven't seen the reasons they used to classify it as such and am not an expert in florae, so this is just an opinion.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Diss

Scientifically speaking tomatoes are fruit, and so are cucumbers, for that matter.

It so happens that cucumbers are botanically speaking fruits, but that they are reffered to as vegetables when it comes to the culinary arts, as tomatoes sometimes are. As the term vegetable is not a botanical term, there is no problem in calling them both fruit and vegetable.

Cf. this article.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Diss

That's a bit like calling whales fish. It's wrong, and it's dumb.

I'd say it's more along the lines of calling whales sea-dwelling creatures since all fruits can be classified as vegetables if we use the word vegetable in it's most general sense.

See here.

Edit:

It also makes sense when speaking about the nutritional values of certain foods.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

That can't apply here because it's a question of calling them a fruit or a vegetable. If you were using the most general sense of the word (describing everything in the entire plant kingdom) then its status as a "vegetable" is already confirmed. In that case, why even bother to ask the question?

Is a puppy a dog or is it a mammal?

Well then, instead of calling a carrot a vegetable, start calling it a root. And instead of calling an onion a vegetable, start calling it a bulb. And calling brocolli a flower. And so on.

Of course, that complicates things, but that seems to be the way you want it.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

@ Diss: here's the specific part of it that refers to this:

Quote:

This argument has had legal implications in the United States. In 1887, U.S. tariff laws that imposed a duty on vegetables but not on fruits caused the tomato's status to become a matter of legal importance. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the controversy in 1893 by declaring that the tomato is a vegetable, based on the popular definition that classifies vegetables by use, that they are generally served with dinner and not dessert (Nix v. Hedden (149 U.S. 304)). The holding of the case applies only to the interpretation of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, and the court did not purport to reclassify the tomato for botanical or other purposes other than paying a tax under a tariff act.

BTW, all I was trying to say is that it makes sense when we use the term vegetable for certain fruits because of the way we use them in meals. Classification as a vegetable for botanical or "scientific" purposes is useless since all plants and all parts of plants can be referred to for this purpose as vegetables.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by NovaX

Why is there an opinion poll about a subject with a factual answer. It's not even a debatable subject, your country is a an idiot for classifying as something it's not, but it doesn't change anything. This thread baffles me.I don't think I have met anyone, anywhere that considers rhubarb a fruit.

First off, and I've said it earlier, EVERY fruit is a vegetable. Had you read Crash's post a bit more closely (or the rest of the thread for that matter) you would have seen that. So no, their country isn't an 'idiot' for defining the tomato as a vegetable for certain purposes.

Are green beans a fruit or a vegetable??? What about squash??? You'll find that they fit the definition for both, but you'll rarely hear someone speak of green beans as fruits.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by NovaX

I've read the thread and you've been flailing abount with a barely sensical argument. You seem to keep bringing in the term vegetable out of context in which it is normally used and which it is being used in the opening post of this thread. If the OP was written on the same wavelength as you are it would make even less sense.

To the matter of the court settlement, they're idiotic for classifying the tomato as a vegetable and NOT a fruit. That doesn't make sense.

I'll admit that as far as the court settlement goes, you've got a point, defining it as not being a fruit is a bit ludicrous.

However, your saying that my argument doesn't have a sense as to the definition of the term vegetable I don't agree with. Get a dictionnary. Look it up. Any comestible part of a plant can be called a vegetable. Alternatively, any plant or part of it can be considered a vegetable. Fruits fall into both of these categories. How does bringing this to light not make any sense?

FELIPE NO