I have to side with Pringles on this one. Pringles are not the same as potato chips. But that article leaves out information, if the tax exception includes "and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch," then it seems all potato snacks are included in the tax. So I don't get why arguing whether it's a chip or not matters.

If I asked for an apple, you wouldn't give me a can of applesauce. It's not the same.

@testsicles: Wait and see, maybe they aren't made from potatoes at all.

I haven't looked at the contents on the back of a pringles can in a long time, but my guess is that "potatoes" show up far down the list, if at all.

The part that really gets under my skin is that P&G is benefiting HUGELY from the federal subsidies that keep commodity corn dirt cheap, so it can be processed down into the chemical components that then are assembled into Pringles - as if getting a huge benefit from the cheap, cheap corn because of American tax payers wasn't enough, they're also going to avoid paying the European taxes.

Looks like the only people losing in this deal are:

1) The American people, who's tax money is padding P&G's (indeed, the whole of industrial agribusiness) bottom line.

2) The taxpayers in the UK, who will be paying more in other types of taxes now that P&G is ducking the tariff.

3) Anyone that eats this over-processed "food-like" substance.

Or, put another way, the only one that wins here is the mega-corp.

Warren, it seems is either in somebody's pocket or in need of being relieved from his duties. This is absurd both under the letter and what I assume to be the spirit of the tax.

INGREDIENTS: DRIED POTATOES, VEGETABLE OIL (CONTAINS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: CORN OIL, COTTONSEED OIL, AND/OR SUNFLOWER OIL), WHEAT STARCH, MALTODEXTRIN, SALT, RICE FLOUR AND DEXTROSE.

BTW this is from the linked article and is pretty relevant to the analysis:

Under the law, most food is exempt from Britain's 17.5% sales tax. Even so, the national tax office claimed that Pringles were covered by an exception for products such as potato chips, sticks or puffs "and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch."

I think this supports my comment above.

I'm not sure how Pringles are not 'made from the potato' as the first ingredient on the can is "Dried Potatoes." I believe that ingredients are listed in order of the overall composition, so there are more 'dried potatoes' than 'Vegetable Oils' (the #2 ingredient).
By this argument, pretty much all 'potato based' foods contain chemicals and would be exempt from this tax.

Excuse me, I'm going to have a tuna sandwich with a slice of cheese food :)

I didn't understand what that judge was saying either, that they're not made from the potatoe for purposes of evading the tax so they're not taxable? What the hell does that mean? That only potato snacks that directly seek to evade the tax are taxable?

Grocery stores around here don't stock Pringles on the same aisle with potato chips. Assuming that this is due to product placement discussions with the company and not a random decision by the grocery chains, this is argument consistent with how they view their product and not just some ploy to avoid an additional tax.

They're still chips, tho.

@Stanwell: I've seen that too, but it's beyond comprehension how they are not a "chip, stick, puff or other similar product" as described.

I assume the stick is one of those really wierd Andy Capp things I used to eat when I was little?

What I'm wondering is why is there an 18% tax on potato products in the UK.

@GamblesAC2: What I'm wondering is how the British support an 18% tax on ANYTHING.

18% is 18 cents on every dollar (or I guess 18 pence on every pound, which is more like a 36-cent tax). If I was Pringles I think I'd argue against the tax too - it's clearly intended to make snack food more expensive.

Hmmm...the article mentions the word "duty." I wonder if this is a tax on imported potato products, perhaps to protect a native potato industry?

They are only 42% potato. I don't know why that's dispositive, however.

I was wondering the same thig at Gambles. As best I can tell, it's not so much a potato thing but that there is a laundry list of imported goods which incur a value-added-tax. This is just one item on the list. I think clearly this (Pringles) is contemplated in the spirit of the tax. Baffling.

What I'm wondering is how linguistic differences across the pond affect this. After all, in the UK a potato chip is what in the US is called a french fry, and a UK potato crisp is a US potato chip. What do the British cans actually say?

Here's another product foreigners are going to try and make us feel bad for getting cheaper.

"Man, I can't believe a bag of potato chips costs $3.49, they used to be $1.99 like 2 years ago"

"Well we pay $9.00, you shouldn't be complaining! A product climbing almost 150% in price in 2 years is perfectly normal!"

See: Gas

Sometimes I wonder about Europe...and how many people here think we should "be more like them."

I believe that Pringles ARE in fact made from dried potatoes, as clearly marked on my nearly empty Jalapeno-flavored Pringles clever packagin... oh wait. Rolled piece of cardboard that I flattened this morning, but since when do potatoes come in flavors that aren't regular. I think the judge may have been swayed because they are "cooked from baked dough, not potato slices."

With the wonders of modern technology, they created potato flour, and last time I checked, dough is Flour mixed with good ol' water, which then can be shaped into anything they want. P&G got lucky this time, but more importantly, the consumers of Britain who will enjoy a slightly cheaper potato chip.

*cracks fingers* *grimaces*

I'm actually not a big fan of the "jagged pieces".

They're basic argument was that potato crisps are wholly made from potato while Pringles are made from a dough. Then what are they made of? Well, apparently it's not that bad.

"But he said that Pringles did not meet these criteria - being made from potato flour, corn flour, wheat starch and rice flour together with fat and emulsifier, salt and seasoning, with a potato content of about 42%."

[news.bbc.co.uk]

Yeah, Pringles can't legally call themselves "potato chips" because they're not potato chips. Potato chips are made from cooking thin slices of potato. Pringles are made from a molded potato flour dough, which is why they have to use the label "potato crisps" in the US. Are Pringles labeled differently in the UK?

I have no idea what the judge was thinking in this case. The tax exception seems designed to include Pringles and other Pringle-type foods.

So is Pringles the pot or the kettle in this one?

@gmoney: I'm beginning to have the same thoughts as to what Funnyuns are...

Either way, "good ole fashioned American chemicals" taste pretty darn good.

Up here in Canada Pringles are labelled "Potato Chips". I guess different countries count different things as a chip.

@tedyc03: It's called VAT, value added tax. They pay that instead of income tax. It's consumption-based, instead of income-based.

@blue_duck: Mmmmmm. Funnyuns.

Didn't they try to argue the other way when they first came out? I seem to remember a Pringles trying to get "potato chip" as a label in the states and failing.

I thought the only reason Pringles labels themselves as "Crisps" in America is because Lays sued the hell out of P&G when they first came on the market in order to prevent them from being called Chips.

Well you say potatoe, and i'll say, potatoe... I guess that doesn't work out so well when typed.

why they heck did I add the E at the end of potato? jeez. sorry still a little hung over.

Yo P&G, pay the farking duty.

Pringles are a potato based product, therefore the duty is owed. Remember, duties paid are also directly paid by the consumer so it will not cost P&G a single penny out of corporate profits.

I don't know what Pringles are exactly but they are far more chemically enhanced than most potato chips. I nearly fell over when I saw the fat content on Pringlese compared to other chip brands.

Stick to Lay's or something, seriously.

@Victo: Two words: Soylent Brown.

Seriously, though, they're clearly not chips as they don't consist of a portion of a potato scraped off and flash fried. Maybe they're trying to declare them a "health supplement."

I think Pringles' initial intention was to make tennis balls. But on the day that the rubber was supposed to show up, a big truckload of potatoes arrived. But Pringles was a laid-back company. They said "Eff it. Cut 'em up."

/RIP Mitch

Soylent Pringles is people!

Sorry P&G, even if they're made in an underground bunker in a chemical laboratory, they're still made from dehydrated potatoes that are dried into a powder and then glued back together.

That's like arguing that a hamburger really isn't made out of beef because it's ground up first and then squished back together as a patty.

IMHO - I'd just avoid Britain.

Or, has no one noticed the extraordinary, fantastic state of the economies of Lithuania, Latvia and Slovakia? Flat tax? Hell, even RUSSIA is flat tax. So ... here's the mind bender ... the West defeats Communism and all it's "takings" and then the West institutes taxation schemes and rates in excess of what Communist countries suffered, while those nations which threw communism and marxism under the bus, opt for a flat tax.

???

The Pringle issue is a sideshow guffaw to the real issue ... tax rates so onerous that the intent is to change behaviors by force. Well, the tea tax didn't work so well in Boston, and Britain lost their colonies through stupid taxation.

@Grrrrrrrrr: I suppose you never grow out of that preschool paste eating age after all..

@Grrrrrrrrr: That's like arguing that a hamburger really isn't made out of beef because it's ground up first and then squished back together as a patty.

Yeah, but a hamburger isn't 42% beef, unless you're eating at McDonalds.

Interesting side-note: I just got back from New Zealand, where they market rice-based pringles as well as potato "crisps". Not bad, either.

@krylonultraflat:

That's what I thought too, which is what makes this issue so much more fun. Yes, we're chips--- oh wait, no we're not!!

Pringles are shelved with other crisps in UK stores. Off hand, I don't remember them having any specific labels (potato crisp vs anything else), but then again, I can't stand them, so I never buy them.

@TACP: They pay income tax as well. In the UK, though, people don't generally have to file tax returns because there aren't that many exemptions, credits, and such like there are in the States. I don't know of any European countries off hand that don't have an income tax, and it's usually as high or higher than the equivalent band in the States.

Now that I'm in Norway, close to 34% of my salary goes to the taxman. Then again, I make a lot more, get 5 weeks vacation, a 9-5 workday, and, well, quite a few more benefits than I've ever seen in the States, except maybe at places like Google.

In the UK the VAT is added to the price on the shelf, unlike the US where the sales tax is calculated at purchase. By avoiding the 17% VAT it gives Pringles either a price sticker advantage or if they are priced the same as potato chips a nice profit margin.

Pringles originally called themselves a potato chip when they launched the product line in an attempt to create an improved chip. Other potato chip manufacturers complained and the government was the one that originally designated them as not being a potato chip which is why they put the word 'Crisps' on the packaging. The federal government was the one who originally designated Pringles as being something other than a chip. With this history I am not surprised that they would argue against paying a tax that applies to chips since the same government taxing them is the one who originally told them that they couldn't call themselves potato chips. (There was actually a documentary on the history of the crunchy potato snack that I overheard my wife watching a little while back and I remember thinking about how asinine the other chip companies were to take this stand at the time...)

Here is a video on how they make Pringles and similar chips. This appears to be the UK version of the Science Channel Show "How it's made" Production of the chip starts at 2:20 From the video "The chips are made from 1/3 water and 2/3 potato flakes and some corn starch"

What we should be arguing is the 17.5% tax and not Pringles trying to wriggle out of it as any company would attempt. What kind of b/s tax is this? Any Brits out there have an explanation because I know you guys are finally figuring out what those carbon taxes really are, more taxes!

@blue_duck: A few years back, my buddies and I had a little dare... Keep a bag of funyunn's (I think that's how you say it) at the bottom of a high school gym locker for 6 months, and the one who eats the bag's contents gets a $100. That is probably the sickest thing I've ever eaten.

@tedyc03: 18 pence on a pound is like a 36 cent tax on two dollars. Which, um, brings us back to an 18% tax being like 18 cents on a dollar. Very, very much like that.

Melt down on the tongue? I did not know you are not supposed to chew Pringles.

These kinds of lawsuits aren't uncommon in Britain. See the Jaffa Cake lawsuit at [en.wikipedia.org]

I believe Britain has something of a junk food sin tax and P&G is trying to argue to get out of it based on a technicality in the regulation. Saving your customers 17.5% gives you a real price advantage.

thats odd, my whole life i thought they looked like chips, felt like chips and tasted like chips. and since i did i had no idea they melted on my tongue. ive been eating these wrong for 30 years. maybe they should advertise like the oreos, so us ignorant consumers can know how we should eat things.

@snoop-blog: The extra e at "potato" means you're either sick or vice-presidential material. Check the mirror to see if you're pale or Quayle.