Seeking to evade a 17.5% sales tax, lawyers for Procter & Gamble successfully argued that Pringles aren’t actually potato chips. Even though all Pringles containers are clearly marked “Potato Crisps,” Procter & Gamble’s lawyers argued that “Pringles don’t look like a chip, don’t feel like a chip, and don’t taste like a chip.”
The absurdly hypocritical claims were made to weasel out of a British tax on potato crisps and other potato-based foods. London Justice Nicholas Warren ruled that Pringles were made, not of potatoes, but out of good ‘ole fashioned American chemicals.
Potato chips “give a sharply crunchy sensation under the tooth and have to be broken down into jagged pieces when chewed,” the Cincinnati-based company’s lawyers argued. “It is totally different with a Pringle, indeed a Pringle is designed to melt down on the tongue.”
Warren agreed. Pringles aren’t “made from the potato” for the purposes of the tax office’s exemption, he said. He didn’t say what Pringles are, other than that they’re tax-exempt.
What’s that old adage about a duck?
Pringles are not potato chips, judge says in British tax case [L.A. Times]
The linked article is purposely very poorly written in an effort to be sensationalizing. If you read the same article from a more legitimate news agency, you’ll find that they actually won the case because “the judge found that Pringles were only 42% potato, and thus exempt.”
US-chips = UK-crisps
US-fries = UK-chips
> Procter & Gamble’s lawyers argued that “Pringles don’t look like a chip, don’t feel like a chip, and don’t taste like a chip.”
I’d like to see them use that in their advertising.
Actually, you know the potato chip companies didn’t originally want Pringles classified as a chip since they aren’t made like a chip.
This was on either the food network or American Eats, I forget which.
I dont care whether they are made of potatoes but:
“”Pringles don’t look like a chip, don’t feel like a chip, and don’t taste like a chip.”"
Yes they do, yes they do and….yes they do.
Putting aside the merits of applying a sin-type tax to certain food products, wouldn’t it be easy enough for Parliament to change the law to make clear whether it is meant to apply to Pringles type products one way or the other?
They’re not made like traditional potato chips: slicing potato, frying them up. They’re made by mixing up a potato-y paste…kind of like when you make cookies, it’s a mixture that you bake later.
The tax is the VAT or Value Added Tax which is similar to the GST in Canada. It’s a tax on goods and exchanges, and differs from sales tax in that it’s charged throughout the supply chain, but you only pay on the increase in value (you really have to read the wiki or a proper article). With the GST (Canada) some food items, and other items such as books are exempt from the tax. What appears to be happening here is food items are exempt unless they fall into a particular category. In this case Pringles was in a category that was too narrowly defined to fit Pringles. The VAT and GST replace series of manufacturing taxes. When they initially brought the GST into Canada it replaced a 10% manufacturing tax (if memory serves me), and some prices were reduced, however the tax was completely new to some services.
[en.wikipedia.org]
17.5% tax?!?!?
@Corporate-Shill: It DOES impact their bottom line, though.
If P&G dodges the duty, then they can either make a better profit margin OR keep their prices low to increase sales compared to their competitors.
If they pay the duty, they have a choice: Decrease margins or increase prices. Decreased margins will directly hurt their bottom line. Increased prices lead to fewer sales and … hurt their bottom line.
@tedyc03: Well. Considering they have national healthcare, and considering how eating junk food leads towards poor health, they’re probably planning ahead. One of my co-workers who’s in Europe several times a year says that the biggest size of sodas over there are equal in volume as the smallest sizes here. And they cost about 5 times as much, if not more.
Pringles may be made with Potato, but they are NOT potato chips in any way, shape, form, or taste. So, NO Carey, it doesn’t walk like a duck and it doesn’t quack like a duck.
Even better: [en.wikipedia.org]
Wikipedia calls them cake and I am not making this up.
Does it seem to anyone else that this court decision probably involved massive amounts of pot?
That’s probably the only time that you could come away with the idea that it’s not a chip, stick, puff or similar product made from potatos.
Pringles are chip shaped things, made in a similar manner to potato chips. Oh, and hey, they’re made out of potatoes. Just because they taste, feel, and look a little bit different from a bag of Lays, doesn’t mean they’re not chips.
I mean, Munchos are potatoes chips, and they’re different from other chips.
explains why they taste like cardboard.
Pringles aren’t potato chips, period. A strawberry
fruit roll-up isn’t the same thing as sliced strawberries.
Reasons why Pringles aren’t potato chips:
1. I can make potato chips at home.
2. I can tell you the ingredients for potato chips off the top of my head.
3. Potato chips are like snowflakes, no two alike.
4. I will always be able to tell the difference between a Pringle and a potato chip. Always.
5. Potato chips aren’t sold via mustachioed cartoon faces.
That being said, I don’t see how Pringles doesn’t meet the other criteria under the law.
But they are not the same as potatoe chips. Quit saying that.
If it’s not a chip, you must acquit!
@TACP:
Who is getting the “value” in the “Value Added Tax” It sure as hell isnt the consumer. Are Pringles really that valuable in England?
To the commenters asking how the govt. gets away with a 17.5 percent tax in the U.K.: In part, it’s because the tax isn’t “visible.” In the States, if you buy a $1.00 pack of Doritos, your sales tax will be figured on top of that. VAT is included in the sale price, so you don’t get a reminder of it every time you shop–though, of course, everyone knows it’s there.
The only good thing I have to say about VAT is that, if you’re a foreigner buying a big-ticket item and will be taking it out of the EU, you can get the VAT refunded.
I agree with P&G lawyers….they taste FAR from a potato chip, quite an artificial/disgusting taste, IMO.
I’m fine with them doing this as long as they never again, EVER refer to their products as potato chips.
Well, it it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck…
It must be an aardvark!
It just goes to show that what’s Legal under the law has little to do with actual reality.
To clarify, I believe that (and I’m not sure if someone already said this. I might have missed it) way back when Pringles were first invented, Frito Lay forced Proctor and Gamble to label them “Potato Crisps” because technically there weren’t chips because they weren’t slices of potatoes.
@Lucky225:
Oh man, I laughed for a minute at that.
This story made my day.
pringles are not potato chips!
i can’t really define it but when i ask for potato chips i don’t expect to get pringles,
lol making your own “sector” of food is a great trademark
NEWS FLASH:
PRINGLES ARE NOT ACTUALLY CONSIDERED “FOOD”
Y’all act like it’s a bad thing, but i’m sure there’d be angry forum-boy posts over the price of pringles being raised if they had to pass it on to customers.
I remember watching a Food Network special on the potato chip and how Pringles had to fight tooth and nail in courts against “potato chip” companies because they claimed to be a chip but weren’t. It’s funny how everything comes full circle, how they’re fighting to not be a chip.
@enderx: I’m surprised they don’t get out the old “shrink ray” and make the package smaller like they’re doing to everything in the US.
Maybe it would be a dead giveaway if the package only contained one chip…err…crisp…err….one piece of “artificially reconstructed potato based simulated crunchy snack food.”
@rmric0: What happened is the judge toked up and then reeealllllyy needed some munchies, so he ruled in favor of P&G in exchange for a shitload of Sour Cream and Onion Pringles.
@Rachacha: When they started showing those big rolls of paper at the beginning I totally thought that they were revealing the secret ingredient of Pringles. I was all ready to yell “I KNEW IT!”
“The absurdly hypocritical claims were made to weasel out of a British tax on potato crisps and other potato-based foods“
Now Google “Pringles Ingredients”: DRIED POTATOES
Having just proveb them wrong in my above post I should profess that I’d love it if they dodge the tax: cheap pringles are good for me.
@TACP – VAT is a sales tax, income tax is also paid from your salary all across Europe.
This reminds me of the Jaffa cake trial that they did the same thing. Jaffa cake’s have chocolate on them so the customs court decided to tax them as chocolate covered biscuits. This went to a court case where the Jaffa company had to argue for the product’s merits as cakes instead of biscuits. They won because cakes, like the Jaffa, get hard when left out. I would hate to work for the customs office.
[en.wikipedia.org]
@Rachacha:
“Potato Sheets”, huh?
I think I’d rather eat the tube.
why tax potatoes in the first place? its not a problem with P&G, it’s a problem with stupid laws and gratuitous taxes.
I don’t know the exact wording of the law that would tax chips in general, but I think the common wisdom would be that it’s obvious that Pringles aren’t potato chips. I mean, they’re just not. If I was sent out to purchase potato chips and came back with Pringles, I’d be shot upon arrival with them.
@Rachacha:
That was a wicked cool video. I love vids about how stuff is made.
A potato chip is just a potato chip, but Pringles are fruit and cake! Wait, wrong snack.
I always suspected that Pringles weren’t “made of the potato.”
@Grrrrrrrrr: What about a “Quarter-Pounder”? I’ve often wondered how much beef is actually in one. By the time they finish adding the fillers and water, they can probably stretch pound of beef into 8 or 10 “Quarter Pounders”.
“What’s that old adage about a duck?”
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably just a human who has eaten too many pringles and saved the last two to make a pseudo duck bill like a child would…
All profit is eventually absorbed by our government.
Adapada – clearly that’s wishful thinking, I’m sure it won’t affect the retail price. No VAT means they can remain at a similar price and pocket 17.5% extra profit.
@tedyc03: Lately, they are taxing the crap out of everything considered “unhealthy” to deter people from buying them… take cigarettes. Many states have bumped up the taxes sooo exorbitantly because they think people will quit over paying the money. Apparently, NY wants to be HEALTHY, I mean, come ON. The NERVE.
You know, they can’t stop you from drinking, or smoking, it’s legal, its your right… but they’ll sidestep the law and bump the prices so it’ll either break you or send you on a wild office rage (as seen on YouTube)
Mu hahahahaha…. not ME. I’m surprised I can still type while drinking beer from a straw, holding a cigarette in my left hand while simultaneously giving the government the finger.
What really strikes me as funny about this is, though I can’t turn up any specifics right this moment, I seem to recall reading a while back that Pringles also successfully fought the other side of this battle when they first hit the market – some other chip company claimed deceptive marketing because they were “pressed potato meal”, not actual chips.
Now hold on just a minute!
The last time I was in England, the word they were using to describe what we call “potato chips” here in the states was “crisps”, with “potato crisps” distinguishing them from “corn crisps” (i.e. tortilla chips) or other types of crisps.
“Potato chips” was a redundant term for “chips,” or what we call french fries on this side of the pond.
I’m guessing the 17.5% tax is to make healhy foods competitive with the processed stuff. It’s probably a vice tax, same as the one you get on booze and cigarettes.