The AFU and Urban Legend Archive Science tomato fruit or veg Select a topic - - - - - - - - Home Searches AFU FAQ - - - - - - - - AFU Animals Books Celebrities Classic Collegiate Death Disney Drugs Food GIF Language Legal Medical Misc Movies Politics Products Religion Science Sex Songs TV - - - - - - - - Other sites

From: jl2704@student.law.duke.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Tomatoes in FAQ
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 20:37:40

In article <Du121x.EL7@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> flb3c@jm.acs.Virginia.EDU (Bo Bradham) writes:

>The other reason is there was some legal imbroglio a long time
>ago. I'm working from memory, but it dealt with fruits and
>vegetables, and certain things pertained to one but not to
>the other. So a judge was asked to decide if tomatoes were fruit or
>vegetables.

>What gives it a certain folkloric cachet is that the decision
>had more to do with legal semantics than with botany.

>Maybe someone could look all this up?

>Bo "I'm on my break" Bradham

The case in question went up to the United States Supreme Court: Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), in an opinion authored by Justice Gray. The plaintiff had sued to recover tariffs paid under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883 on tomatoes he imported from the West Indies. The Tariff Act called for payment on vegetables, but not fruits, hence the importance of the distinction. Although I agree that the "folkloric cachet" does derive from the impression that the decision had more to do with legal semantics than with botany, the decision did not define tomatoes as "vegetables-in-law" but rather attempted to assess whether the legislature at the time the Tariff Act was passed would have intended tomatoes to be classed as vegetables within the meaning of the Act. The Court chose to base its interpretation of the somewhat vague statute on the ordinary meaning of the words "fruit" and "vegetable" as opposed to the botanical or trade meanings. In this sense, the opinion actually favors common reasoning over technical reasoning.

Highlight of the (short) opinion:

"Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans and peas. But in the common language of the people ... all these are vegetables, which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with or after the soup, fish or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.

"The attempt to class tomatoes with fruit is not unlike a recent attempt to class beans as seeds, of which Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this court, said: 'We do not see why they should be classified as seeds, any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance.'"

ObWitty(?)/OffensiveRemark: So the real question is: Is Newt Gingrich a fruit or a vegetable?

J "maybe he's just gone to seed" L