Pringles no Potato Chips

In the UK the High Court ruled that Pringles are not crisps. Procter and Gamble successfully challenged the ruling of a VAT (tax) 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". 

Good for Procter and Gamble, who can save a lot on tax as a result of this verdict. 

Although not all may be gain: Pringles definitely had the image of a potato snack in a cute saddle form and a unique packaging. 

What happens to that image when consumers read that Pringles are “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 % only”. These are all perfectly fine ingredients, but a bit confusing for the consumer maybe? 

In the UK most foods are subjected to zero VAT, but in the tax law that was formulated in 1994, a number of “luxury” products are specifically excepted. I did some digging in the tax code – curious how a difference in composition, replacing potato flour by flour from other sources, could make such a difference. This is the full article relevant for savoury snacks: 

“ Any of the following when packaged for human consumption without further preparation, namely, potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs, and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch, and savoury food products obtained by the swelling of cereals or cereal products; and salted or roasted nuts other than nuts in shell.” 

Nowadays I do not consider savory snacks a particularly luxury food. What pops up in my mind thinking of luxury food: Fresh Strawberries at Christmas. Exotic fruits, lobster, exquisite coffee, caviar, organic New Zealand lamb. You guessed it, these all go for the zero tax category in the UK. 

I can see that the entire savory snack sector could be defined as a luxury food and would require the 17.5% tax. But singling out the potato?! Interesting sources of future discussions can be sweet potato snacks, cassava crisps, rice crisps and the question ”is puffing and extrusion of cereals different from swelling cereals”. 

It is clear that the (snack) food technologists have far outsmarted the lawyers. Nevertheless, the lawyers are probably going to make the money. 

Here is my suggestion for the crisp manufacturers in the UK: Stop manufacturing regular crisps! From now on, only sell crisps that require reheating in the microwave prior to consumption! Indeed, these could go in the 0 % tax category! 

All kidding aside: singling out the potato ingredient in this tax code does not make much sense looking at today’s snack isle. Maybe something to correct in the “year of the potato”?