In Britain, most foods are exempt from the value-added tax, but potato chips — known as crisps — and “similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour,” are taxable. Procter & Gamble, in what could be considered a plea for strict construction, argued that Pringles — which are about 40 percent potato flour, but also contain corn, rice and wheat — should not be considered potato chips or “similar products.” Rather, they are “savory snacks.”The VAT and Duties Tribunal disagreed, ruling that Pringles — which have been marketed in the United States as “potato chips” — are taxable. “There are other ingredients,” the tribunal said, but a Pringle 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 percent.”
What the Times tries to make of this - that the law cannot be strictly constructed - is a commentary on the legislature which made the law, not on the principle that the people have a right to know what the law is.It is not too much to say that "liberals" systematically pass laws which are a muddle, precisely so that the people cannot know in advance what the law is. What is wanted is judges who will read the law as written - and who will, if that is not possible, say that it is not a law. Not a "Justice" Sotomayor who will decide based not on the law but on the identity of the defendant.
Pringles are not a favorite of mine, but I do buy them some times when I am going to pack food and dont want my rel chips coming out in pieces. I hate the broken chips in the bottom of the bag.
The packaging of Pringles is fairly sturdy and they travel well.