A Court Ruling Decided Whether Pringles Could Be Called Potato Chips

Chances are, you've probably never given much thought to that can of Pringles other than pondering, 'How do I get the last few potato chips from the tube without getting grease all over my arms?'

It turns out, this crunchy snack has quite a history. It was once at the center of a huge controversy about its ingredients and whether these crisps could truly be considered potato chips.

Between 2007 and 2009, the makers of the iconic 'once-you-pop-you-can't-stop' chips faced off in front of three different levels of the British judiciary, defending their stance that Pringles were not — by definition — potato chips.

Here's how this oddly complicated issue began. In the mid-20th century, France and England introduced a tax known as the value-added or VAT tax. This 'consumption tax' initially started as a 10 percent levy on all goods purchased from a business. Today, more than 20 percent of the world's tax revenue comes from VAT, making it a significant player in global taxation.

In the UK, most food items are exempt from the VAT, with the exception of potato chips or 'similar products made from potatoes, or from potato flour.' This sparked a prolonged legal battle to determine whether Pringles (once marketed as the 'newfangled potato chip') truly qualified as potato chips. If they were ruled as such, Procter & Gamble, then the parent company, would face a 17.5 percent VAT tax.

Procter & Gamble initially argued that Pringles shouldn't be classified as potato chips because they didn't 'contain enough potato to possess the quality of 'potatoness.'' (Is that even a word?) They also claimed that Pringles didn't resemble the shape of traditional potato chips and were more like a 'savory snack.'

In 2008, a lower British court sided with Procter & Gamble, ruling that Pringles were not potato chips, primarily because they contained only 42 percent potato and had 'a shape not found in nature.' However, the Court of Appeal revisited the case a year later and overturned the decision, dismissing Procter & Gamble's argument that a product's ingredients don't define the product as 'hogwash.'

As a result of that ruling, the corporate giant had to fork out $160 million in taxes, while reluctantly admitting that their 'newfangled' snack was, indeed, a potato chip. And that's the tale of Pringles' brief encounter with taxes, junk food, and British judges.

For the record, Pringles are still classified as potato chips, and probably always should be, because... well, they're made from potatoes.