Clark Wolf is the host and organizer. The panel—on food and politics—includes me, talking about my memoir, Slow Cooked, An Unexpected Life in Food Politics; Chloe Sorvino, author of Raw Deal: Hidden Corruption, Corporate Greed, and the Fight for the Future of Meat; Alex Prud’homme, author of Dinner With The President: Food, Politics and the History of Breaking Bread at the White House; and Tanya Holland, author of Tanya Holland’s California Soul. Free, but register here. It starts at 5:00 p.m. and lasts one hour.
by Marion Nestle
May
26
2009
Latest court ruling: Pringles are potato chips (sort of)
Ah the British. So ahead of us in so many ways. A British court has ruled that Pringles have enough potato in them to qualify as crisps (translation: potato chips) and, therefore, are subject to a Value Added Tax of 15%. Procter & Gamble, the maker of Pringles, argued against the tax. Pringles, it says, are not crisps. Why? Because their shape and packaging are “not found in nature.” Tough, said the court. Pringles are 42% potato. That’s enough to qualify them as crisps. Under the law, crisps get taxed.
Pringles are 42% potato? OK, but what else do they contain? Here’s the ingredient list: DRIED POTATOES, VEGETABLE OIL, RICE FLOUR, WHEAT STARCH, MALTODEXTRIN, SALT AND DEXTROSE. CONTAINS WHEAT INGREDIENTS. (You will be relieved to note: No artificial ingredients. No preservatives.)
Hey: potatoes are the first ingredient! I say tax ’em.
Update May 25: Here’s what Advertising Age has to say about the Pringles-as-a-vegetable idea. Pringles, it says, was able to supply the entire world with its product out of one factory in Tennessee, precisely because of its infinite shelf life and packaging. Ordinary potato chips, alas, get rancid after a while.