• melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well, the usa passed a law that makes a tomato a vegetable instead of a fruit, so labels don’t mean much there (neither does law anymore), so who knows? I agree though because of the “walks like a duck” logic.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      “Vegetable” isn’t a real scientific term. Nothing is stopping a fruit from also being a vegetable

      • bedwyr@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        There is a definition of a fruit though, and it is understood that vegetables are not fruit. As I understand it.

        • Carrot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Sure, but tomatoes are a fruit botanically (more precisely, a berry). “Vegetable” is a culinary term, and has no real strict definition beyond “a plant grown to be eaten”, so a tomato falls squarely into being a berry, a fruit, and a vegetable.

    • DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      As far as I’m aware, the supreme court made a ruling on that, but that’s not the same as passing a law. Are you conflating the two or do you have additional sources? Because I can’t find any evidence that was made a law.