You're viewing a single thread.
Okay, but the ruling is totally sensible inasmuch as it applies to "purposes of tariffs, imports and customs". Tomatoes by and large aren't being imported for their botanical value; they're being used for food. This ruling exists so corporations can't "um ackshually" their way out of paying their fair share.
But that's too sensible; in reality, this unanimous ruling that I never bothered to spend five seconds researching independently (I am very intellectually superior) was just "le Americans uneducated ecksdee".
(And before you point it out: yes, an "um ackshually" definition of vegetables includes fruits, although this is using a culinary one. So indeed, the original post can't even pedant right.)
Edit: to totally gild the lily, imagine your country adds a tax to crab meat because overfishing for a luxury good is destroying the Earth's oceans. Someone sells Alaskan king crab, and they go to the courts demanding their taxes back because "um, ackshually, crabs are infraorder Brachyura, but king crabs are nested cladistically inside the hermit crab superfamily". You would hope the court would tell them to get lost, because for the environmental impact and culinary uses that the bill is targeting, it's a crab.
'Fruit de la mere' is obviously just some attempted tax dodge.
Assuming you were aiming for the French phrase for 'seafood', I think you meant 'fruit de mer.'
'Fruit de la mère' would translate to, 'fruit of the mother.'
Fruit de la merde
Or maybe dodging the no meat Friday of the Catholic Church. ?