The whole fruit/vegetable controversy only comes because we’re trying to use two different domains of terms interchangeably: botanical terms and culinary terms.
Tomatoes (and squash, and pumpkins (which, side note, are a type of squash), and cucumbers) are botanically fruits, but culinarily they’re most commonly used as vegetables because they tend to be less sweet, particularly when raw. Mushrooms are botanically…well, I guess they’re botanically “n/a”, as they’re not a part of the plantae kingdom, but whatever–they’re typically considered botanical, so they’re “botanically” fungi, but culinarily they’re most commonly used as vegetables (or, interestingly, as meat replacements).
We get into the same linguistic confusion when we start throwing around “peanuts aren’t nuts, they’re legumes!”–botanically, yes, peanuts are legumes, but culinarily they’re most commonly used as nuts. See also: “green beans” are botanically pods, not beans, but we use them culinarily as vegetables; and many “berries” are botanically something else but we use them culinarily as berries; meaning they’re often left whole, mixed with other berries in the same dish, and go well with cream in cold summer desserts.
The whole thing is a misguided exercise in pedantry; “technically burritos aren’t sandwiches, they’re meat-sacks!” They’re both, and we instinctively understand that trying to compare the two terms is silly because “sandwich” is a culinary term and “sack” is not.
Another funny part of this is that pedants are trying to say that tomatoes are (botanically) fruits and not vegetables, but the closest thing to a definition we have for “vegetable” botanically is “literally all plant life and maybe also some fungi,” so tomatoes are clearly both fruit and vegetable botanically.Plus, they’re culinarily used as vegetables, but can also be used as fruits in some cakes, pies, sorbets, and so forth (and isn’t ketchup just a tomato smoothie?), so tomatoes are clearly both fruit and vegetable in culinary terms as well.edit: Someone who actually knows what they’re talking about (an ecologist) has corrected my botanical definition of “vegetable.” Actually, they’re “edible parts of a plant which are not fruit.” Which means that tomatoes are explicitly excluded as vegetables, being botanically a fruit. I don’t think that ruins my overall point in any way, though.
It is a bit weird that we use some fruits as “vegetables”, like tomatoes and cucumbers. But, other fruits like mango or raspberry are so different from your typical “culinary vegetable” that you have to be very careful in how you use it in a savoury dish. There isn’t the same crossover for other edible plants. For example, I can’t think of any tuber that could sneak into a fruit salad unnoticed.
I guess it comes down to there being a lot more variety among fruits than other edible plant parts. Plus, humans have been tweaking edible plants for millennia. So, who knows, maybe the original cucumber was more “fruity”, but has been tuned over the years to be more “saladey”.
For example, I can’t think of any tuber that could sneak into a fruit salad unnoticed.
Some sweet potatoes can be very sweet indeed, and they can be used in sweet dishes too (I’ve seen for example, sweet potato mash topped with marshmallows). They are just too porous to be used in a traditional fruit salad.
I guess it comes down to there being a lot more variety among fruits than other edible plant parts.
Pulses are incredibly variable too in their usage. You can use them as nuts, vegetables, grains, oil or pastes (sweet and savoury). You can use them in place of potatoes, you can bake bread from them, you can even use them to replace meat in many situations. Young sweet peas can be used almost in place of some fruit as well.
So, who knows, maybe the original cucumber was more “fruity”, but has been tuned over the years to be more “saladey”.
Cucumbers are a kind of pumpkin, same as melons. They are all variations of the same original fruit, and yes, some of them are clearly in fruit-salad territory, while others are more saladey and others again can be used in place of potatoes.
And lastly, the most crazy variable plant is Brassica. Different cultivars of this one plant provide swede, turnip, kohlrabi, cabbage, collard, kale, cauliflower, broccoli, romanesco, Brussels sprouts, mustard seed, rape seed and a lot of smaller, lesser known things too.
I am 100% with your well written explanation here!
Just one ‘nitpick’, that isn’t really even a nitpick because you did qualify the relevant part with ‘tend to be’:
A properly grown tomato absolutely can be so flavorful, sweet, tangy, varied, complex… that you could just eat it like an apple.
Not as sweet as most apples, but way, way more sweet than the typical mass produced tomato you’re likely to get in the US.
I’ve been to a few farmers markets where… a couple of smaller farms were growing just absolutely stellar quality tomatoes.
…
On the other hand, squash and zucchini, even the fancy ones from farmers markets?
Main difference I noticed was basically perfect ripeness, they still just taste like nothing.
(I guess I should also point out this was from 10ish years back, sadly, a lot of farmers markets now have a lot of people basically just reselling some particular, slightly higher quality but still mass produced fruits and veggies, than aren’t even local)
…
Finally, to throw more insanity on this terminology dumpster fire…
Corn.
Corn is arguably, from different domains of technical or colloquial meaning… a fruit, vegetable, and grain.
After millennia of us artifically selecting (and then just outright genetically engineering) what was originally, basically a kind of grass, we now have something that is now so sweet, that the US uses it to make HFCS, a cane sugar substitute… and then we jam that HFCS … into bread, soda, everything.
So… ketchup… is then roughly a tomato/corn smoothie, made primarily from two… frui-getables.
Yep.
Fruigetable.
(froojzh-tah-bull)
((im too lazy to look up IPA symbols))
You’re welcome, bwahahah!
Great post, with one caveat
the closest thing to a definition we have for “vegetable” botanically is “literally all plant life and maybe also some fungi,”
I got my degree in Ecology and Evolution, and we always used a similar working definition but it was “edible parts of a plant which are not fruit.” So basically botanically, stems, roots, leaves, flowers, and all subvarieties of those are vegetables. Fruits are fruits. Fungi are fungi.
The true misconception is that there are scientific definitions and culinary definitions. No the culinary definitions don’t fit their scientific category. They’re not intended to.
They’re (mushrooms) also constantly listed on American menus as a “protein” option despite a dire lack of the stuff
Hmm, is it really that little? The stats look devastating, like e.g. 3 grams per 100 grams, but mushrooms also consist out of 90+ grams of water.
For example, the button mushroom has:
100 g total - 91.8 g water - 1.7 g fiber = 6.5g nutrients
2.89 g protein / 6.5 g nutrients = 44.4% proteinComparing that to e.g. canned black beans:
100 g total - 70.8 g water - 6.69 g fiber = 22.51 g nutrients
6.91 g protein / 22.51 g nutrients = 30.9% proteinYes but you don’t dehydrate the food. And you’re not eating multiple kgs of mushrooms in a single sitting, which you would need to get anywhere close to the total amount of protein in other ‘protein’ options
Yes but you don’t dehydrate the food
You kinda do unless you eat then raw. Cooking removes water content.
Cooked beef has 26-35 grams of protein per 100g. Uncooked like 20, and beef doesn’t contain as much water as mushrooms do.
I’d say it’s acceptable to have them in the high protein part, as macro-wise, they are.
Strawberries, blackberries, mulberries, and raspberries are not berries.
Bananas, aubergine (eggplants), oranges and grapes are berries.
Dangleberries aren’t real berries either.
deleted by creator
I have the last pane spoken with an old man voice living in my head rent free for some reason
It’s alarming the rate at which it just pops up
