Chances are , you probably have n’t make much thought to that can of Pringles other than wondering " how do I get the last fewpotato chipsout of the tube without greasing up my arms ? "
As it turns out , this piquant snack has quite a story . It once was in the middle of a massive controversy that questioned the ingredients and whether the chips were actually potato chips at all .
From 2007 to 2009 , the makers of the " once - you - pop out - you - can’t - blockage " chips stood in front ofthree different levels of the British judiciarytrying to defend the decision that Pringles chip werenot — by definition — murphy chips .
Here ’s how this comically complicated trouble start . In the mid-20th 100 , a tax was born by means of France and England called the value - add together or value-added tax tax . This " consumption tax " started off as a 10 percent tax on allgoods grease one’s palms from a business . More than 20 percent of theworld ’s taxation revenuecomes from the value - added tax gain it a pretty bragging deal .
In Britain , most foods are exempt from the value - added taxation , except for potato chips or " alike ware made from the potato , or frompotato flour . " This led to a long , arduous journeying to figure out whether or not Pringles ( which , by the elbow room , were touted at one time as the " newfangled potato silicon chip " ) were really potato chips . If theywereruled as chips , Pringles ' parent companionship at the time , Procter & Gamble , would be subject to a17.5 percent VAT taxation .
Procter & Gamble ’s initial line of reasoning was that , no , Pringles were not Solanum tuberosum chip because they did n’t " contain enough potato to have the quality of ' potatoness . ' " ( Is that even a give-and-take ? ) They also argued Pringles did n’t resemble the human body of a potato buffalo chip and were more along the line of a " spicy snack . "
In 2008 , a grim British court gibe and ruled that Pringles were in factnotpotato chips , mainly because they containedonly 42 percent potatoand had " a shape not get hold in nature . " But just a class afterwards , the Court of Appeal re - examined and reversed that decision , forebode Procter & Gamble ’s line that the ingredients of a product do n’t limit the product " guff . "
With that determination , the monster bay window had to pay $ 160 million in taxes , while — begrudgingly — calling their newfangled potato chips , well , potato chips . And that is the story of Pringles and its brief dance with the populace of taxes , dust solid food and British judges .
For the record , Pringles arestillconsidered spud chip and probably always should because … they ’re made from potatoes .
Pringles FAQ
Please copy / paste the following textual matter to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article :
