Monday, June 1, 2009

Crispy. Salty. Judicious

Editorial Observer

The Lord Justice Hath Ruled: Pringles Are Potato Chips

from the New York Times

Published: May 31, 2009

Britain’s Supreme Court of Judicature has answered a question that has long puzzled late-night dorm-room snackers: What, exactly, is a Pringle? With citations ranging from Baroness Hale of Richmond to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Lord Justice Robin Jacob concluded that, legally, it is a potato chip.

The decision is bad news for Procter & Gamble U.K., which now owes $160 million in taxes. It is good news for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — and for fans of no-nonsense legal opinions. It is also a reminder, as conservatives begin attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for not being a “strict constructionist,” of the pointlessness of labels like that.

More on politics and potato chips here.

3 comments:

  1. What could it have possibly been other than a potato chip? Duh!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, I think Pringles are supposed to "technically" be a crisp. The difference? A chip is a deep fried slice, while a crisp is baked goo. But then, spud's spud. Or are they?

    But then, how are Doritos chips if you follow that definition. Perhaps I'll sue......

    ReplyDelete
  3. Having grown up in a P&G household, I am used to such debates...is JIF really peanut butter? (too much sugar)...is Dove beauty bar soap (too much rinse agent) I recall that in the US, Pringles was not allowed to advertise as a potato chip. I remember munching Pringles as a kid when they were still in test marketing.

    So, Pringles is a potato chip for tax purposes but not allowed to compete as a chip for advertising purposes. That sounds like a lose-lose situation, kind of like how trans people can get the shaft on who they can marry!

    ReplyDelete