Comments:UK court rules Pringles are potato-light
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Comments[edit]
I'm not exactly where I stand on this. I mean, on one hand, the tax is an infringement on personal rights... but if the law does stand as it does, how the hell are Pringles NOT a potato snack? What?! w:User:Poe Joe 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's because a 'potato snack' (as opposed to food with a little bit of potato in it) has to be by definition, at least 50% potato. Pringles are not; therefore they are not. What I'm interested to know is if the product will fall in price because of this or if they'll simply turn what would have been money for public spending in to extra profit. Shane.Bell (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Or expand. Fephisto (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
i'm more curious to know what the remaining 52% is... - Imind (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- (grabs a can of pringles) If my taste buds are correct.....salt. Fephisto (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)