When is a crisp not a crisp?
When it's a Pringle, or at least that's what Pringle's themselves argue and have insisted for sometime.
"Look", they say, "there might be a bit of potato in this weirdly industrialised concave food stuff we produce, but what about all the other ingredients in them as well: there's loads of flour, both corn and rice, a fair bit of wheat starch, emulsifier and dextrose. And there's fat, lots and lots of fat. Yes, there might be potato in this over processed product. But let's not get too excited by that. It's only 42%. C'mon, what self respecting packet of crisps can stand up and claim, as a Pringle can can, "Less than half of me is potato!""
Unfortunately for the we're-not-a-crisp brigade at Pringle HQ, British judges disagree and now the tax-man is in the money.
I wonder what the PR damage is by Pringle's fighting their case so diligently. Afterall, in this era of healthy eating, it is more than a little alternative for a producer to insist just how unhealthy and unnatural their product is.
I assume that someone's done the maths to balance up the cost of the case, plus the potential cost of tax (£120m) versus the impact on sales of reminding us we're eating nothing but heavily processed starch and fat.