tomatoes

Today I learned that there was a Supreme Court case regarding whether tomatoes were a fruit or a vegetable.

"The plaintiff's counsel then read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word 'tomato.'"

"The defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words 'pea,' 'egg plant,' 'cucumber,' 'squash,' and 'pepper.'"

And then the Supreme Court rules that tomatoes are in fact, vegetables:

"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, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, 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."

What the hell is this? "Tomatoes are a fruit, but since they're served in dinners makes them a vegetable." Does their "general" inclusion in dinners really strip them of being a fruit? When cut do they not bleed seeds? By this logic grapes (botanically speaking) are the fruit of a vine, but the only reason they are classified as such is that they are not served with dinner.

But wait!


Exhibit A: Dinner with grapes (a noted fruit)

What's this?? Is that a dinner... with grapes?? Madness! According to Justice Gray grapes in this instance would be vegetables upon their inclusion into dinner (an inapplicable and preposterous rationale for deciding the fate of an androgynous foodstuff).

I call bullshit! This court case needs to be overturned!

Q.E.D., bitches.