Procter & Gamble: Pringles Are Not Potato Chips

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]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Gopher bond says:

    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.

  2. Parting says:

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

  3. stageright says:

    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.

  4. gjaluvka says:

    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.


  5. gjaluvka says:

    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.

  6. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    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 :)

  7. Gopher bond says:

    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?

  8. Stanwell says:

    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.

  9. gjaluvka says:

    @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?

  10. GamblesAC2 says:

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

  11. tedyc03 says:

    @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.

  12. tedyc03 says:

    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?

  13. gmoney says:

    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.

  14. Thoria says:

    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?

  15. FromThisSoil says:

    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.”

  16. Adapada says:

    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*

  17. snoop-blog says:

    I’m actually not a big fan of the “jagged pieces”.

  18. Televiper says:

    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%.”


  19. teapot37 says:

    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.

  20. aront says:

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

  21. blue_duck says:

    @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.

  22. Lewis1989 says:

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

  23. TACP says:

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

  24. snoop-blog says:

    @blue_duck: Mmmmmm. Funnyuns.

  25. deadmandancing says:

    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.

  26. 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.

  27. snoop-blog says:

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

  28. snoop-blog says:

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

  29. 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.

  30. dragonfire1481 says:

    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.

  31. Benny Gesserit says:

    @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.”

  32. 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

  33. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    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.

  34. BlackFlag55 says:

    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.

  35. blue_duck says:

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

  36. Gopher bond says:

    @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.

  37. anonymousmonk says:

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

  38. Rachael says:


    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!!

  39. Tallanvor says:

    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.

  40. crackheadmatt says:

    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.

  41. Hobart007 says:

    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…)

  42. Rachacha says:

    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”

    + Watch video

  43. sisedi says:

    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!

  44. Adapada says:

    @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.

  45. Garbanzo says:

    @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.

  46. girly says:

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

  47. FishingCrue says:

    These kinds of lawsuits aren’t uncommon in Britain. See the Jaffa Cake lawsuit at []

    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.

  48. fostina1 says:

    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.

  49. engfish says:

    @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.

  50. cmdrsass says:

    A 17.5% sales tax is extraordinary! P&Gs efforts will be for naught. The legislators will simply rewrite the tax law to read “potato-based snacks” instead of “potato-chips” to extract their pound of flesh.

  51. HeavyDiaper says:

    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.”

  52. rdldr1 says:

    US-chips = UK-crisps
    US-fries = UK-chips

  53. artki says:

    > 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.

  54. battra92 says:

    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.

  55. RudeandRude says:

    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.

  56. rb1971 - E39M5'er says:

    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?

  57. Squeaks says:

    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.

  58. Televiper says:

    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.


  59. famousmortimer78 says:

    17.5% tax?!?!?

  60. Gamethyme says:

    @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.

  61. synergy says:

    @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.

  62. krispykrink says:

    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.

  63. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    Even better: []
    Wikipedia calls them cake and I am not making this up.

  64. 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.

  65. chenry says:

    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.

  66. ironchef says:

    explains why they taste like cardboard.

  67. Gopher bond says:

    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.

  68. Lucky225 says:

    If it’s not a chip, you must acquit!

  69. linbey says:


    Who is getting the “value” in the “Value Added Tax” It sure as hell isnt the consumer. Are Pringles really that valuable in England?

  70. EYESONLY says:

    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.

  71. mbz32190 says:

    I agree with P&G lawyers….they taste FAR from a potato chip, quite an artificial/disgusting taste, IMO.

  72. jjason82 says:

    I’m fine with them doing this as long as they never again, EVER refer to their products as potato chips.

  73. Difdi says:

    Well, it it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck…

    It must be an aardvark!

  74. Marshfield says:

    It just goes to show that what’s Legal under the law has little to do with actual reality.

  75. Wyndikan says:

    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.

  76. AbrogatedOrder says:


    Oh man, I laughed for a minute at that.

    This story made my day.

  77. tenio says:

    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

  78. Crazytree says:



  79. enderx says:

    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.

  80. 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.

  81. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    @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.”

  82. animeredith says:

    @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!”

  83. Overheal says:

    “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

  84. Overheal says:

    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.

  85. mattarse says:

    @TACP – VAT is a sales tax, income tax is also paid from your salary all across Europe.

  86. Matt says:

    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.

  87. lonebannana says:


    “Potato Sheets”, huh?

    I think I’d rather eat the tube.

  88. ajadoniz says:

    why tax potatoes in the first place? its not a problem with P&G, it’s a problem with stupid laws and gratuitous taxes.

  89. balthisar says:

    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.

  90. @Rachacha:
    That was a wicked cool video. I love vids about how stuff is made.

  91. pfeng says:

    A potato chip is just a potato chip, but Pringles are fruit and cake! Wait, wrong snack.

  92. LionelEHutz says:

    I always suspected that Pringles weren’t “made of the potato.”

  93. camman68 says:

    @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”.

  94. Icepagoda says:

    “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…

  95. A_Random_Me says:

    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.

  96. @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.

  97. RandomZero says:

    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.

  98. kc2idf says:

    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.

  99. TVarmy says:

    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.