• tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    3·
    8 hours ago

    Botanically, yes. Not in common usage, though. Someone also tried pulling that regarding tariffs in the US and the US legal system said “nice try, but no”.

    searches

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

    Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously held that tomatoes should be classified as vegetables rather than fruits for purposes of tariffs, imports and customs. Justice Horace Gray delivered the opinion of the Court in holding that the Tariff Act of 1883 used the ordinary meaning of the words “fruit” and “vegetable”, instead of the technical botanical meaning.[1]

    • trem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      2·
      3 hours ago

      Yeah, “vegetables” are not a thing as far as botany is concerned. It is a purely culinary category.

      The distinction between botanical and culinary definitions often causes confusion. Botanically, a fruit is defined by its origin as a mature ovary containing seeds, based on anatomical structure and developmental biology.

      In contrast, culinary definitions are based on flavor, texture, and how a plant part is typically used in meals. Sweet or tart plant products are generally considered culinary fruits, while savory plant parts are classified as culinary vegetables. This explains why many botanical fruits are commonly treated as culinary vegetables. Tomatoes, for example, are botanical fruits because they develop from a flower’s ovary and contain seeds, but their savory flavor leads them to be used as a vegetable in cooking. Cucumbers, peppers, squash, and eggplants are other botanical fruits frequently used as culinary vegetables.

      https://biologyinsights.com/the-botanical-classification-of-fruits/