Update Update

[ppalan]

Tomato sauce and ketchup are vegetables!!

Actually, certain past presidential pronouncements not withstanding, tomato is a fruit. I guess that makes those 2 items jelly too...
Pete

[Three Valves]

The question of whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable actually made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court! In the 1893 case of Nix v. Hedden, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, for purposes of the tariff Act of March 3, 1883, tomatoes are vegetables.

That's good enough for me!!

[alfredr]

Well, before I can accept that ruling, I have to know if it was a liberal court or a conservative court.

And whether any of the justices had to walk 3 miles to school in snow over their ears.

Or were allergic to peanut butter... or to tomato jelly.

[windshieldbug]

It was a Remedial Court-
that's why they needed to ketchup...

[Three Valves]

I just find it refreshing that the SCOTUS just making **** up as they go has precedence!!

[ppalan]

...not to beat a dead tomato , but in my book, the Supreme Court doesn't get the final say on biology:
"...The tomato is the edible, often red fruit/berry of the nightshade Solanum lycopersicum, commonly known as a tomato plant. The tomato is consumed in diverse ways, including raw, as an ingredient in many dishes, sauces, salads, and drinks. While it is botanically a fruit, ...ok, ok you are partly correct...it is considered a vegetable for culinary purposes (as well as under U.S. customs regulations, see Nix v. Hedden), which has caused some confusion...." I'll stick with the biology. I believe one Tubenetter has in his signature that "...Knowledge is is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not using it in a fruit salad..." Sounds good to me.

Pete

[Three Valves]

...not to beat a dead tomato , but in my book, the Supreme Court doesn't get the final say on biology:

Oh no??

See Obergefell v. Hodges

[Donn]

...not to beat a dead tomato , but in my book, the Supreme Court doesn't get the final say on biology:

Oh no??

See Obergefell v. Hodges

So the Supreme Court wrote ppalan's book, in Obergefell v. Hodges? Trolling or not, please try to say stuff that makes a little sense. Biologists, like ppalan, don't generally regard the Supreme Court as an arbiter of plant morphology.

[Three Valves]

So the Supreme Court wrote ppalan's book, in Obergefell v. Hodges? Trolling or not, please try to say stuff that makes a little sense. Biologists, like ppalan, don't generally regard the Supreme Court as an arbiter of plant morphology.

Like the definition of a tomato as a vegetable, going against biology, Obergefell v. Hodges has decided that biologically different and unequal relationships are to be treated equally under the law.

My purpose isn't to troll or get political, it is to respond to a challenge to make sense of what I had previously considered obvious.

Ignoring biological facts in both cases may prove harmless, but to me they are equally nonsensical.

[Dan Schultz]

.... Like the definition of a tomato as a vegetable....

Regardless... it seems rather stupid to call tomato sauce on pizza a vegetable when it comes to nutritional value of meals for school kids.

[Three Valves]

Observing their preferences, it seems as though many coastal-Americans may be vegetables.

Vegetable, fruit, nut, whichever!!

[Three Valves]

.... Like the definition of a tomato as a vegetable....

Regardless... it seems rather stupid to call tomato sauce on pizza a vegetable when it comes to nutritional value of meals for school kids.

I'm a spinach and mushroom man, myself!!

[tbn.al]

I'm with shleppy on this one. "Tomato, Tomahto, let's call the whole thing off"!

[scottw]

I'm with shleppy on this one. "Tomato, Tomahto, let's call the whole thing off"!

Agreed--no need to lose a valued thread to topic we will never all agree upon.

[Donn]

So if we can safely return to what to do about peanut allergies ... interesting New Yorker article, The Peanut Puzzle. Doubled over the last decade - why? Doesn't look like anyone knows for sure, but a strong theory about it is that early exposure leads to tolerance, and the implication would be that kids are getting started later on peanuts and not doing so well. Also seems to be far worse in temperate latitudes, better closer to the equator. Any of this could be coincidence, though.

Anyway, this seems to address the natural curmudgeonly reaction, i.e., when I was a wee lad, we didn't have no peanut allergies or any such foolishness! Indeed, probably didn't have so much of it anyway.

[tbn.al]

Spent 2 hours yesterday in the middle of a busy 4 lane awaiting the arrival of a wrecker. Now the shop says my timing belt is broken maybe damaged the valves. Repair cost way more than car is worth. Got to buy another one I guess. Anybody want a 05 PT Cruiser cheap! As in come haul it away.

[Three Valves]

Anyway, this seems to address the natural curmudgeonly reaction, i.e., when I was a wee lad, we didn't have no peanut allergies or any such foolishness! Indeed, probably didn't have so much of it anyway.

Everyone smoked, but no one in my 3rd grade class had asthma.

We all ate PBJ or bologne sammiches, but no one was fat.

Go figure!!

[Donn]

I forgot to mention an interesting theory about antibiotics, immune response and Helicobacter pylori, common cause of stomach ulcers. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... nd-ulcers/

[ppalan]

Donn,
Thanks for that article. It is extremely interesting.To my mind, it certainly seems to suggest that the burgeoning number of folks with allergies may be yet another unintended consequence of the overuse of antibiotics of the last several decades.
Pete

[Donn]

I agree, but provided that it would be one among several contributing factors, along with late exposure and probably some modern hazards like the bizarre soup of enzymes and emulsifiers and stuff they put in "bread." Along with antibiotics, there may be some similar effects from C-section vs. natural birth. Lot of things in the mix.