this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
193 points (97.5% liked)

Today I Learned

17733 readers
155 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

In 1883, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, requiring a tax to be paid on imported vegetables, but not fruit. The John Nix & Co. company filed a suit against Edward L. Hedden, Collector of the Port of New York, to recover back duties paid under protest. They argued against the tariff by pointing out that, botanically, a tomato is a fruit due to its seed-bearing structure growing from the flowering part of a plant.

At the trial, the plaintiffs' counsel entered into evidence definitions of the words "fruit" and "vegetables" from Webster's Dictionary, Worcester's Dictionary, and the Imperial Dictionary. They called two witnesses, who had been in the business of selling fruit and vegetables for 30 years, and asked them, after hearing these definitions, to say whether these words had "any special meaning in trade or commerce, different from those read".

Both the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendant's counsel made use of the dictionaries. The plaintiffs' counsel read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word tomato, while the defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words pea, eggplant, cucumber, squash, and pepper. Countering this, the plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster's and Worcester's dictionaries the definitions of potato, turnip, parsnip, cauliflower, cabbage, carrot and bean.

Justice Gray, citing several Supreme Court cases (Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37, 42, and Jones v. U.S., 137 U.S. 202, 216) stated that when words have acquired no special meaning in trade or commerce, the ordinary meaning must be used by the court. In this case dictionaries cannot be admitted as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Gray acknowledged that botanically, tomatoes are classified as a "fruit of the vine"; nevertheless, they are seen as vegetables because they were usually eaten as a main course instead of being eaten as a dessert. In making his decision, Justice Gray mentioned another case where it had been claimed that beans were seeds — Justice Bradley, in Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U.S. 412, 414, similarly found that though a bean is botanically a seed, in common parlance a bean is seen as a vegetable. While on the subject, Gray clarified the status of the cucumber, squash, pea, and bean.

Nix has been cited in three Supreme Court decisions as a precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions. (Sonn v. Maggone, 159 U.S. 417 (1895); Saltonstall v. Wiebusch & Hilger, 156 U.S. 601 (1895); and Cadwalader v. Zeh, 151 U.S. 171 (1894)). Additionally, in JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc., 917 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), a case unrelated to Nix aside from the shared focus on tomatoes, a judge wrote the following paragraph citing the case:

In common parlance tomatoes are vegetables, as the Supreme Court observed long ago [see Nix v. Hedden 149 U.S. 304, 307, 13 S.Ct. 881, 882, 37 L.Ed. 745 (1893)], although botanically speaking they are actually a fruit. [26 Encyclopedia Americana 832 (Int'l. ed. 1981)]. Regardless of classification, people have been enjoying tomatoes for centuries; even Mr. Pickwick, as Dickens relates, ate his chops in "tomata" sauce.

In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited Nix as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the official state vegetable.

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] finthechat@kbin.social 54 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I like the truncated version of the title: "for purposes"

[–] AtmaJnana@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Here I will cite the precedence established in The United States v Go Fuck Yerself.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

State of California v Nunya B.

[–] Klanky@sopuli.xyz 34 points 11 months ago (1 children)

As someone who works with classifying goods imported into the US under the Harmonized Tariff System, this is super interesting. I’ll have to do some research to see if Customs still uses this rationale. Thanks for posting!

[–] zorro@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Let us know what you find. Something tells me this is a factoid that will stick in my head forever and I must have updated information.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Fun fact: the word "factoid" implies the thing is not a fact, but something which shares some similar properties to a fact. In the same way that a football is a "spheroid" or a cinderblock is a "cuboid"

[–] paradiso@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

I'm a humanoid

[–] zorro@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Oh how interesting. My mental dictionary had factoid as some sort of trivial fact

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

dictionary-toid*

[–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago

That is the more common modern usage. I believe 'factoid' was originally used to mean a pseudo fact, or falsehood presented as a fact, but that usage is rarely found today.

[–] Klanky@sopuli.xyz 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yep, fresh tomatoes fall under chapter 7 of the HTS - "Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers". Pretty much every country uses the first six digits of the HTS code, so at some point the WCO (World Customs Organization - the ones who manage the HTS) agreed with that idea.

Also, in their Explanatory Notes for chapter 7, they say this:

" In headings 07.09, 07.10, 07.11 and 07.12 the word “vegetables” includes edible mushrooms, truffles, olives, capers, marrows, pumpkins, aubergines, sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata), fruits of the genus Capsicum or of the genus Pimenta, fennel, parsley, chervil, tarragon, cress and sweet marjoram (Majorana hortensis orOriganum majorana)."

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Knowledge is knowing tomato is a fruit.

Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

[–] Sowhatever@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 11 months ago

Charisma is convincing you to eat the fruit salad anyway.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Charging that the Agriculture Department "not only has egg on its face, but ketchup, too," Budget Director David A. Stockman said yesterday he had ordered the withdrawal of proposed federal rules that would have listed ketchup and pickle relish as vegetables in school lunches. . . . Stockman's rough-edged remarks were an obvious effort at damage-control. The proposed redefinition of the school lunch has let the Democrats embarrass the administration as rarely before. . . . The guidelines were supposed to help schools that provide free or reduced-price lunches to lower-income students as they try to deal with a $1 billion cut in federal support for the fiscal year that begins next Thursday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/09/26/us-holds-the-ketchup-in-schools/9ffd029a-17f5-4e8c-ab91-1348a44773ee/

Reagan took a billion dollars (in 1981, that’s $3.4 billion today), away from school lunches for children. We know many of them needed that food but republicans said the hell with kids, let’s give lockheed-martin $1,200 for a hammer.

Nothing has changed in the GQP. Well, the descent into utter madness, but they really weren’t that far off in 1981.

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

It was a simpler time

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Webster {attempting to standardize spelling across the English speaking world}

Everyone: oh hey thanks for defining all reality for us.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

instead of the technical botanical meaning.

What is the technical botanical meaning of vegetable? A tomato is a vegetable. It's fine. It's also a fruit. So what?

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's no botanical meaning of vegetable. That's a cooking term. In botany, you have different parts of the plant, like fruit, stem or root, you have different groups of plants, like the ginger family or monocots. And you can say a plant is edible or useful.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. I don't why it's always surprising to people that court battles are fought over legal definitions. That's how legal definitions are made.

Vegetables are not anything that is not a fruit. Tomatos are both, as are cucumbers. When you say "technically a fruit is blah blah blah", it says nothing about whether something is vegetable. The definition is from a different domain. The definition of vegetable seems to have to due with human digestion. The botanical definition of fruit doesn't care about the existence of humans. Vegetables are culinary and to some extent cultural. "Fruit" also has a culinary meaning, but its not technical in that domain. There is no way to "technically" distinguish between fruit and vegetables as "vegetable" isn't technically botanically defined.

[–] londos@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

"Vegetable" is a societal construct, separate from biological classification. Quite progressive, really.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If it were a fruit, it would fall under a different section of tariffs. The tariff has rules for rectangles but has an exemption/special case for squares.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's a matter of law. Hence the 9-0 decision. It's still a fruit; it's still a vegetable.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Nah, it's not a fruit under law.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't talking about the law. I asked, "What is the technical botanical meaning of vegetable?". And you start talking about squares and rectangles.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Seemed like a rhetorical question to me, but sure. The technical botanical meaning of vegetable is any plant you can eat safely.

In this case, if the technical meanings were taken, the fruit rules would take precedence over the vegetable rules.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And did you get that from a botany textbook?