Name a vegetable。 It‘s easy right？Sweet potatoes and carrots are vegetables， obviously。 Onions perhaps？But what about lettuce， for example？
And we have all met those who insist that a tomato is a fruit。 Then there are others who argue that because it‘s not sweet in the same way as an apple or a pear，a tomato is more properly categorised as a vegetable。
说出一种蔬菜的名字。这不难，对不对？甘薯和胡萝卜显然是蔬菜。洋葱也许是？但比如说生菜，算是蔬菜吗？
大家都遇到过坚称西红柿是水果的人。不过也有人说，西红柿不像苹果或梨那么甜，因此把它归为蔬菜更恰当。
I put the question to Wolfgang Stuppy，research leader in Comparative Plant and Fungal Biology at the UK‘s world-renowned Royal Botanic Gardens， Kew & Wakehurst Place。
On the little question of whether vegetables really exist，he could not have been clearer： “No，not botanically，”he says。“The term vegetable doesn‘t exist in botanical terminology。”Tamara Kershner’s comment echoes this edict：“Vegetable is a general term that doesn‘t exist in the biological world。”
我向沃尔夫冈-斯图皮请教了这个问题，他是全球闻名的英国皇家植物园比较植物和真菌生物学部的科研带头人。
关于蔬菜是否当真存在这个小问题，他的观点再清楚不过了。“不，在植物学意义上不存在，”他说，“蔬菜这个词在植物学术语中不存在。”塔玛拉·克什纳的评论呼应了这一论断：“蔬菜是一个泛称，在生物学的领域里是不存在的。”
From a biological perspective then， there is no such thing as veg。 There are just plants。
So is that it？ Vegetables do not really exist？
既然是这样，从生物学的角度来看是没有蔬菜这回事的。只有植物。
所以就是这样？蔬菜当真不存在？
Not quite， because veggies might have a place in the kitchen。 “Vegetable is a culinary term，” says Joshua Sammy。 I refer to On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee，something of a holy book for foodies。 “Vegetable took on its current sense just a few centuries ago and essentially means a plant material that is neither fruit nor seed，” he writes。
Yet even here， within the culinary sphere， the definition of vegetable seems to rest on the definition of a fruit。 A fruit， says Stuppy， is “any structure produced by a plant that does or is meant to contain seeds。”So according to McGee， the tomato does not qualify as a vegetable （as most of you knew）。
But if we apply such fruit-based logic， then we would have to banish dozens of other kitchen staples from the vegetable drawer，including cucumbers and courgettes （Pierre G。 Bélance）， squash and pumpkins （Brock Burch），peppers and corn （Ali Ware）， beans and aubergines （Lee Chi Pan Mark） and so on。 Mushrooms aren‘t even plants so they can’t be vegetables either。 The same for seaweed。
并不尽然，因为蔬菜也许在厨房中有一席之地。“蔬菜是烹饪用语，”乔舒亚-萨米说。我查阅了哈罗德·麦吉所著、堪称食品界圣经的《食物与厨艺》一书，他写道：“蔬菜仅仅在几个世纪之前才有了现在的含义，基本上是指既非果实又非种子的植物食材。”
但即使在烹饪学的范畴内，蔬菜的定义似乎仍基于果实的定义。斯图皮说，果实“是一切由植物生成的含有或应当含有种子的结构”。因而在麦吉看来，西红柿算不上是蔬菜（这是大多数人都知道的）。
但如果采用这个基于果实的逻辑，我们就要把几十种其他食材从蔬菜柜中移走，包括黄瓜和小胡瓜、大小南瓜、辣椒和玉米、豆类和茄子等等。蘑菇连植物都不算，自然也不可能算是蔬菜。海藻也是一样。
Andrew Schaug has a useful way of looking at the tomato：“It‘s technically a fruit because it contains seeds。 It’s a vegetable because it‘s part of a plant and used as a savoury‘vegetable’ in cooking，” he says。 Several others expressed a similarly practical position： there are some plants that are fruit but are used as vegetables。“If you put your botanist’s hat on they are fruits，” says Stuppy。 “If you put your chef‘s hat on they are vegetables。”
So ask a botanist to define a vegetable and they will say they cannot， as such a definition does not exist。
Ask a chef， and they might define a vegetable as plants that are neither fruits nor seeds。
Ask a lawyer， however， and they might say it depends where you live。
More than a century ago， the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the status of the tomato in the infamous case of Nix versus Hedden。
安德鲁-肖格看待西红柿的方式颇为高明，他说：“它严格说来是果实，因为它包含着种子。说它是蔬菜是因为它是植物的一部分，在烹饪时可作为一种可口的‘菜’。”其他多人也表达了类似的务实立场：有些植物是果实但被用作蔬菜。“从植物学家的角度看，它们是果实。而从厨师的角度看，它们是蔬菜。”斯图皮说。
所以，如果请植物学家定义蔬菜，他们会说自己做不到，因为这样的定义并不存在。
请教厨师的话，他们也许会把蔬菜定义为既非果实又非种子的植物。
但如果请教律师，他们也许会说这取决于你生活在哪里。
一个多世纪前，美国最高法院在臭名昭著的尼克斯诉赫登案中判决了西红柿的属性。
Several of you were aware that the Tariff Act of 1883 decreed that imported vegetables， but not fruit，should be subject to tax。 With a financial interest in tomatoes， the Nix family argued along botanical lines，that the tomato is a fruit so they were exempt from duty。 The court begged to differ，siding unanimously with federal officer Edward Hedden： the tomato is a vegetable。
But live outside the US， and things again become confusing，as this is not the judgment of lawyers in the European Union， at least in respect of European Union Council Directive 2001/113/EC。 This ruling，on the content of fruit jams， jellies and marmalades，clearly states that tomatoes“are considered to be fruit，”as are rhubarb stalks，carrots and sweet potatoes。
As a result， a jar of rhubarb， carrot or sweet potato jam–none of which contain any botanical fruit - must state the percentage of fruit they contain。
不少人都了解，《1883年关税法》规定对进口的蔬菜征税，但对水果不征税。由于西红柿涉及尼克斯家族的经济利益，他们根据植物学辩称，西红柿是水果，因而应免税。法庭并不苟同，所有法官都站在联邦官员爱德华·赫登一边——认为西红柿是蔬菜。
而在美国之外，事情又变得令人困惑了，因为欧盟的律师并不这样判定，至少就《欧盟理事会2001/113/EC号指令》而言并非如此。这一关于果酱、果冻和柑橘类果酱成分的规定明确称西红柿“被视为水果”，同样归为此类的还有大黄梗、胡萝卜和甘薯。
因此，大黄梗、胡萝卜和甘薯酱——它们都不含有植物学意义上的果实——必须标明所含果实的百分比。
Which brings us full circle。 Do vegetables exist？
Botanically no。
Culinarily， yes。
Legally， maybe。
Easy， isn‘t it？
这让我们兜转一圈后回到了原点。蔬菜这东西存在吗？
从植物学意义上说，不存在。
从烹饪学意义上说，存在。
从法律意义上说，也许存在。
这不难，对不对？（胡溦译自英国广播公司网站9月17日文章）
