2 x Pringles Christmas Crackers 2022 - 8 x 40g Tubs of Crisps Snacks - Christmas Table Decoration Gift Set - Merry Crispmas

Product Information

In the tribunal of Procter & Gamble (v.20205), the trader appealed against the standard-rated liability applied to their ordinary Pringles product. In dismissing the appeal, the tribunal decided that ordinary Pringles were made partly from the potato, and such was the quantity of potato content that the tribunal considered the product to be made from potato flour, noting: Procter & Gamble appealed the Tribunal decision and the case was heard in The High Court of Justice Chancery Division [2008] EWHC 1558 (CL), where it was decided that Regular Pringles were not on the facts found made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch. The final comments made by the COA set out the approach which should be used as an approach to determining the liability of a product. The response to these points is that it is vital to recall why the Tribunal was required in the first place to answer the question whether the goods in question are ‘made from’ the potato. It was not in answer to a scientific or technical question about the composition of Regular Pringles, or in response to a request for a recipe. It was for the purpose of deciding whether the goods are entitiled to zero rating. On this point the VAT legislation uses everyday English words, which ought to be interpreted in a sensible way according to their ordinary and natural meaning. The ‘made from’ question would probably be answered in a more relevant and sensible way by a child consumer of crisps than by a food scientist or a culinary pedant. On another aspect of party food I think that most children, if asked whether jellies with raspberries in them were ‘made from’ jelly, would have the good sense to say ‘Yes’, despite the raspberries.

Details of the decision are not reproduced in this guidance because, on appeal by HMRC, the High Court decision was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2009] EWCA Civ 407. Here the potato flour content is over 40 per cent; it is the largest single ingredient by about 9 percentage points; and it is nearly three times larger than the other flours in the ingredients taken together. We have to give a yes or no answer to the question ‘are Regular Pringles [partly] made from the potato, from potato flour or from potato starch’ and we are bound to say yes. There are other ingredients but it is made from potato flour in the sense that one cannot say that it is not made from potato flour, and the proportion of potato flour is significant being over 40 per cent. The fact that it is also made from other things does not affect this. Accordingly we find that regular Pringles are made from potato flour…made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch means that potato, or potato flour or potato starch, must be a main ingredient of the product. The fact that another ingredient other than potato may comprise the largest percentage of the total weight of the product will not necessarily determine the matter. If potato is present in the product and it is a similar product to a crisp, then in the light of the Procter & Gamble High Court decision the product will be standard-rated.

Here the potato flour content is over 40 per cent; it is the largest single ingredient by about 9 percentage points; and it is nearly three times larger than the other flours in the ingredients taken together. We have to give a yes or no answer to the question ‘are Regular Pringles [partly] made from the potato, from potato flour or from potato starch’ and we are bound to say yes. There are other ingredients but it is made from potato flour in the sense that one cannot say that it is not made from potato flour, and the proportion of potato flour is significant being over 40 per cent. The fact that it is also made from other things does not affect this. Furthermore the COA stated The Tribunal’s decision in favour of HMRC was not an absolute answer to a pure question of fact or to a pure question of law. It was a judgment of mixed fact and law on the classification of Regular Pringles for VAT purposes. ‘Similar to’ and ‘made from’ are loose textured concepts for the classification of the goods. They are not qualified by words such as ‘wholly’ or ‘substantially’ or ‘partly’ which have crept into the legal arguments. Those words are not in the legislation itself. The Tribunal’s conclusions were on matters of fact and degree linked to comparisons with other goods and related to the composition of the goods themselves. If you think you’re being a little bit more health conscious by buying baked chips, think again. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration data on acrylamide levels in foods, baked chips may contain more than three times the level of acrylamide as regular chips! The best way to avoid these dangerous heat induced toxins is to skip the chips, french fries and other processed foods. If you’re addicted to the crunch of Pringles, try munching on some celery, an apple or some almonds instead! High levels of acrylamide has been shown to cause neurological damage in humans and a risk for several different types of cancer in animal studies. But acrylamide isn’t the only dangerous ingredient in Pringles. All foods cooked at a temperature higher than 120 degrees Celsius can include many heat induced toxins. A project called the Heat Generated Food Toxicants reported that there are over 800 heat induced compounds that can be found in industrial or restaurant prepared foods. At least 52 of these compounds are potential carcinogens!In the case of Proctor and Gamble (V.18381), the appellant brought before the tribunal a new product, the Pringles Dipper. The new product, looking similar to a typical Pringle, is chiefly made of 39% vegetable oil, 38% potato flour and 16% wheat and corn. The main difference between the two products is that the new Dipper is specifically designed for dipping and accordingly has a scoop shape to be used for dipping the product into accompanying dips. Although we disagree with the basis of the decision, Policy were not confident of winning on all three counts which would have been required by the High Court, and therefore did not appeal. We maintain that: