To Chip Or Not To Chip
Pringles, created at Procter & Gamble, came into existence in 1968 to counter greasy, fragile potato chips that were available in the market at the time. And indeed, a lot of research went into it. The shape of each piece is a hyperbolic paraboloid — a three dimensional shape with two curvatures that intersect in such a way that the stress required to crack it is more than the generic potato chip. And the can is specifically designed to accommodate this unique shape without crumbling. So much research and technology goes into this delicious snack. But hold on!
What do you call this snack? If you say potato chips, you’re absolutely right!
No, you are, in fact, absolutely wrong.
Actually, I don’t quite know for sure. Well, I don’t think the creators know either.
Before calling this confusion my lack of knowledge and/or certainty on the subject, let us try to understand where I am coming from.
Technicality is a funny concept. For the first year, no one in the United States of America batted an eye that Pringles was promoted as “potato chips”. But one fine day, on August 7th, 1969, the FDA brought in a new definition for potato chips, which turned the world of Procter & Gamble upside down.
In 2007, P&G dragged the Revenue and Customs Commissions of the United Kingdom Government into court to challenge a heavy Value Added Tax(VAT) that was levied on the company, based on a VAT Act that has been in place since 1994.
Why wait 13 years before pushing this Act on P&G, you ask? Let me answer that with another question. In 2015, why did the Indian government suddenly deem Maggi noodles to contain heavy lead content and equally suddenly fall within limits again?
According to FDA’s new ruling in 1969, a potato chip is defined as an article made by frying thin slices of potato in deep fat. On that note, any article that contains considerable amount of rice flour, corn starch or other sources of carbohydrates shall not be claimed to be a potato chip. P&G and the FDA went back and forth for years. P&G’s claim was that while Pringles contained wheat and rice flour, it did have a significant amount of potato — enough to be called a potato chip.
I personally agree with P&G’s side but for a different reason. It is not easy to change the identity of one of their most successful products due to a “technicality”. Imagine how you would feel if your basic identity changes one fine day simply because the Government says so!
According to the VAT Act of 1994, most of the food products are exempted from a 17.5% VAT on import except those that are made from potato or potato flour. So the claim (which looks more like an epiphany) from the Revenue and Custom Commissioners in early 2007 was that Pringles is, in its base, made from potatoes and hence cannot be exempted from VAT. Initially, P&G claimed that their product was in a shape that is not natural when compared to the typical fried potato slices — therefore, they are not potato crisps (chips are called crisps in the UK, to make things more confusing than they already are).
That makes sense. Well in that case, most actors and models cannot be deemed human because they don’t resemble the average human being. I feel for them. I feel for myself too, honestly.
FDA provided a middle-ground option in 1974. P&G could now continue to promote Pringles as potato chips but with a phrase added to it — “made from dried potatoes”. They struck that middle ground to an extent that they amended the ruling to allow this. But P&G declined to take this offer after due consideration. They decided to concede to FDA and change their promotion from “potato chips” to “potato crisps” in 1975.
What difference did it make in practical sense? The same difference that renaming Chennai Central Railway Station to Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. M.G.Ramachandran Railway Station made. People won’t change their vocabulary over such frivolity.
After the shape argument was overruled in a higher British court (I would like to believe that it was laughed off), P&G claimed that Pringles contains 42% potatoes, which is less than half and also contains several other ingredients. So, it would be unfair to call it a potato crisp. So, according to this argument, a marmalade containing oranges and grapefruit would be made from neither. “A nonsensical statement”, the jury said, pointing out the same example. So in essence, they were laughed off for the second time (we can confirm that this was a laugh off more than an overruling). P&G ended up paying a whopping $160M in taxes in 2009.
One can see the logic behind the High Court’s ruling here. You don’t have to win more than 50% votes (or even that many seats) to claim majority. Right?
So I hope my confusion is justified here. Like movie listings on Netflix, the definition depends on your geographical location.
Let me put it this way. Pringles are potato crisps, irrespective of whether you think crisps are chips or not. And you can take this definition to the bank (P&G did)— it took three courts, a commission and the FDA to come up with this absolutely assertive statement.
What a waste of hard-earned tax money, right? Meanwhile, in the same year as the UK case hearing, a kidnapper sued his hostages and the Kansas Police Department for escaping and helping them escape respectively, and the State of Oklahoma jubilantly claimed that watermelon is a vegetable.
It is absolutely appalling that a company would change colours according to its opposition. How would you trust such a product? Would you not cringe when you next see a Pringles can in a supermarket, for neither you nor the creator knows what the contents actually are? Would your dreams not be haunted by cans of “potato crisps” that you’ve gobbled into your gut so far?
By the way, these pizza flavoured Pringles are amazing. You should try it! I’m on my second can for the week.
