Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 28th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

When is a crisp not a crisp? When it's a Pringle, says High Court judge



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 July 2008
A WRANGLE over one of the world's best-selling snacks has come to the crunch.
The makers of Pringles were yesterday celebrating a High Court ruling that the snack is not a crisp.

Mr Justice Warren's judgment means that, unlike regular crisp-makers, Pringles manufacturer Proctor & Gamble is exempt from paying VAT on its sna
ck.

The firm had successfully challenged the ruling of a VAT tribunal that Pringles should be standard-rated at 17.5 per cent as the product fell within the definition of "potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch".

The Pringles case comes several years after McVities successfully argued that Jaffa Cakes were cakes rather than biscuits. Marks & Spencer was involved in a similar wrangle more recently over its tea cakes, which HM Revenue & Customs officials insisted were biscuits.

Proctor & Gamble went to the High Court in London to argue against the VAT tribunal's decision in May this year.

P&G, which sells more than £500 million worth of Pringles every year, pointed out that, unlike potato crisps, their product had a regular shape "not found in nature" as well as a uniform colouring and texture and a "mouth-melt" taste.

The firm said crisps did not contain non-potato flours like Pringles do, and were not normally packaged in tubes.

It insisted that its customers did not regard Pringles as potato crisps.

After an exhaustive inquiry into the ingredients, manufacturer and packaging, the judge said Pringles were not "made from the potato" within the definition laid down by the 1994 VAT Act. He said that to fall within the exception, a product "must be wholly, or substantially wholly, made from the potato".

Pringles, he said, were made from potato flour, corn flour, wheat starch and rice flour, together with fat and emulsifier, salt and seasoning, with a potato content of around 42 per cent.

The judge determined: "This appeal is allowed because Pringles are not, on the facts found, products 'made from the potato, or from potato flour or from potato starch'."

A spokeswoman for Proctor & Gamble said: "We are pleased with this High Court ruling that Pringles should be appropriately categorised for VAT alongside other savoury snacks with which it competes."

A spokesman for HM Revenue & Customs said: "HMRC will consider the judgment carefully, with a view to deciding whether or not to appeal."

The recipe for Pringles was created by Alexander Liepa, of Ohio, in 1956. The creator of their iconic packaging, Fredric Baur, famously requested his remains be buried inside a Pringles box after his cremation.

Pringles first went into production in the United States in 1964, but it was another four years before they were launched officially. More than 45 flavours are produced and Pringles are on sale in more than 100 countries.





The full article contains 490 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 July 2008 10:40 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

adsullata,

05/07/2008 00:13:58
Pringles, he said, were made from potato flour, corn flour, wheat starch and rice flour, together with fat and emulsifier, salt and seasoning, with a potato content of around 42 per cent.

I don't think I will ever eat another Pringle...ick! I need to read more labels.
2

Mr A Roy,

05/07/2008 00:29:59
Try putting a light to an ordinay crisp you will be amazed.
3

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 05/07/2008 01:45:29
Lets just celebrate the fact that the tax man didn't get his way .... life is not all about making them pay - it sometimes about doing the right thing. Our government counts on the snide and the selfish to carry the vote on imposing taxes. If VAT was put onto these snacks - the company would not have felt a thing - YOU would just have more expensive snacks ... next time just be careful what you wish for ... your playing into their hands by subscribing to this nonsense.
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/07/2008 01:57:06

For Gods Sake! how petty of the 'VAT' Man!

D'oh! a "Crisp" is a "Crisp"

A "Pringle" is a "Pringle"

A "Pringle" is more,.. Fattening than a "Crisp"!

Maybe the "VAT MAN" was wating his share of the "Fat"!
5

The Batboy,

05/07/2008 07:34:25
Of course a Pringle is a crisp. The old adage "If it looks like a duck ......" springs to mind in this instance!
6

donald,

glasgow 05/07/2008 08:49:56
It's a jumper stoopid.
7

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 05/07/2008 10:02:47
What a lot of legal palaver over a potato "CHIP".

Is it any wonder that lawyers wear $3,000 suits and $700 shoes with this nonsense going on in the law courts taking up valuable time that could be used to convict murderers, rapists, and muggers.

RIDICULOUS!
8

Iain's,

05/07/2008 10:20:54
It just shows how far the civil service has fallen.

This case was a complete waste of taxpayers' money.

The legal definition says that a potato crisp is mainly potato. Pringles are not.

p.s. the cheapest Pringles I know of are at Lidel. Anyone know a cheaper place?

9

Animal Defender,

Northants 05/07/2008 10:27:22
I wouldn't buy anything whatsoever from Proctor & Gamble as they test their products on animals still! Shame on them. Other companies produce good products without animal testing, it's about time Proctor& Gamble did the same. Watch out for their name of products and buy an alternative that doesn't use animal testing
10

Douglas,

Bathgate 05/07/2008 10:36:15
Do they make any products intended for use on animals and if they do, how do they test them?
11

,

05/07/2008 11:52:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

,

05/07/2008 11:52:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Mcsnagpile,

05/07/2008 12:39:49

It should be taxed on the basis of being a non food.
Was Fredric Baur taxed as a crisp on his demise??—being cremated and put in a Pringles box.

I think it is disgraceful that they experiment on animals by feeding crisps etc. At least with humans it is self inflected.
14

Matt there,

somewhere 05/07/2008 16:13:29
Why on earth doesn't HMRC declare all foodstuffs as crisps and slam VAT on everything?
15

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

05/07/2008 16:15:15
12... Proctor and Gamble & Unilever....two of the very worst....the amount of animals that will have suffered agony, for no good reason, at their hands, is disgusting. I buy nothing from these feckers....injecting coffee and tea into cats stomachs?...aye very nice.....

If you have a cat or dog at home do not feed them IAMS...they fed their own brand food to beagle dogs and then had lumps of muscle cut out to analyse it....the beagles were treated barbarically...some died...they were left on stone floors in pens without pain relief, having just had an 'operation'....

Look beyond the label..."L'Oreal"...are you worth the pain and suffering they have inflicted on animals for years, and will continue to do so?....every time they invent a new 'chemical' (which they do constantly) by law, it has to be tested on animals...so your lovely 'nanosomes' etc has been inflicted on some poor creature before you smear it on your coupon...none of us are "Worth it"...fraid to say..

These people that work in these labs...how do they sleep at night?
16

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 05/07/2008 16:30:59
There are any number of anomalies in respect of VAT, and each time there is a test case it costs the system (you and me) a small fortune. The solution is simple: so simple that even the thickest uncivil servant should be capable of understanding the principle. Apply VAT to everything, by which I mean everything, from food to kiddies' clothes. Adjust the rate proportionately, maybe down to 8-10%, maybe even lower.
17

Andrew.,

Oxford 05/07/2008 18:06:12
The government charge tax on absolutely everything that is unhealthy or bad. Cigarettes, alcohol, diesel...

By logical conclusion, cake and pringles *must* be healthy as there are no taxes applied.

Scoff away!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.