Batter-Coated Fries OK'd As Vegetable

[pd Rydia]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/french_fries_vegetables_1

Batter-Coated Fries OK'd As Vegetable

By IRA DREYFUSS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Batter-coated french fries are a fresh vegetable, according to the Agriculture Department, which has a federal judge's ruling to back it up.



But the department said Tuesday that the classification applies only to rules of commerce, not nutrition, and it doesn't consider an order of fries the same as an apple in school lunches.

The ruling last week by federal District Judge Richard Schell in Beaumont, Texas, allowed batter-coated french fries to be considered fresh vegetables under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. Most other frozen fries had been on the list since 1996.

Regulations under the law help to assure buyers of commodities such as french fries that they are getting what they ordered, said George Chartier, a spokesman for the department's Agricultural Marketing Service. Frozen fries are fresh simply because they don't meet the standard necessary for them to be listed as processed, and adding batter to the fries does not change the classification, he said.

The commodities act does not apply to nutrition, where batter-coated french fries are still considered processed food.

The department does not plan to repeat its experience in trying to classify ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches, Chartier said. The ketchup-as-vegetable proposal was put forward in the Reagan administration, and the department dropped the idea after it found itself not only opposed but laughed at.

The department's proposal to list batter-coated fries as fresh under the commodities act provisions was challenged by a Dallas-area food distributor, Fleming Companies. The company is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, and the law requires creditors who sold fresh fruits and vegetables to be paid in full, while other creditors might get partial payment, said Fleming Companies' lawyer, Tim Elliott of Chicago.

Fleming Companies plans to appeal, Elliott said. The law was intended to protect growers of fruits and vegetables, especially small farmers, and the ruling misconstrues the act's intent, he said.

"It's unfathomable to me that, when Congress passed this law in 1930 and used the term `fresh vegetable,' they ever could have conceived that large food-processing companies could have convinced USDA that a frozen battered french fry fell into that definition," Elliott said.

Although Fleming Companies sold the fries to supermarkets, most are eaten in fast food restaurants, Elliott said. The coating makes the fry crunchy and adds flavor, he said.

[CindySue48]

"the classification applies only to rules of commerce, not nutrition"

[adkpam]

That's why tomatoes are a fruit, botanically, but a vegetable, legally.

[cc48510]

That's why tomatoes are a fruit, botanically, but a vegetable, legally.

http://www.vegparadise.com/highestperch8.html

Exactly, in fact it was the US Supreme Court that decided a Tomato was a "Vegetable" under the law.

Today tomatoes are on our highest perch, but in 1887 they had their day in the highest court of the land. Are tomatoes a fruit or a vegetable? Ponder that--and that's exactly what the Supreme Court did on February 4, 1887 when tomatoes were elevated to the highest perch in the land, the United States Supreme Court. It's hard to imagine that tomatoes were the subject of a Supreme Court decision that officially labeled them a vegetable.
Under the Schedule G.-Provisions of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, there were tariffs placed on tomatoes imported from the West Indies because they were considered a fruit, and imported fruits were subject to tariffs.

Webster's Dictionary was consulted, along with Worcester's Dictionary and the Imperial Dictionary for the definitions of "fruit" and "vegetable." The passages from the dictionaries defined "fruit" as the seed of plants, or that part of plants which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed. According to the court, "These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are 'fruit" as distinguished from 'vegetables,' in common speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act."

The court decision stated, "Botanically, tomatoes are considered a fruit of the vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in common language of people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not like fruits generally, as dessert."

[RosaAlta]

". . . usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not like fruits generally, as dessert."
You can tell that's a statement from before the 20th century! Most Americans today would scoff at the notion of fruit as a dessert -- unless it was a banana split or apple cobbler!