本页使用了标题或全文手工转换

品客

维基百科,自由的百科全书
跳转至: 导航搜索
品客的商標
品客洋芋片

品客Pringles,舊稱「翹鬍子洋芋片[1][2]),是美国家樂氏旗下的一個馬鈴薯片品牌。其特色在於:

  1. 採用厚片波浪造型來增加口感
  2. 採用長筒罐狀包裝以避免壓碎洋芋片

這種特殊包裝是由弗雷德里克·J·鮑爾(Fredric J. Baur)所發明,鮑爾是位有機化學家與食品保存技術人員,在宝洁公司(P&G)從事研發與品管工作(甚至他在過世要求將骨灰放入他所發明的品客包裝筒)。

品客於1967年時以「Pringle's Newfangled Potato Chips」之名面市,翌年(1968年)開始改為現稱,目前幾乎在世界各地均有販售。品客除了口味多樣之外,還有限定販賣地區或時間的特色口味,相當受到消费者的歡迎。

2012年2月15日宝洁将旗下的零食业务品客薯片(Pringles),以27亿美元现金(约210.6亿港元)出售予食品巨擘家乐氏(Kellogg)。

主要成分[编辑]

主要包含干馬鈴薯、植物油、米粉、澱粉、玉米澱粉、酵母萃取物、糖、洋蔥粉、香料、麥芽糊精、鹽、等等,其他添加物視口味不同而改變。

販售口味[编辑]

  • 原味(Original)
  • 洋蔥酸奶油味
  • 德州BBQ
  • 起司
  • 波浪
  • 田園沙拉
  • 印度咖哩(期間限定)
  • 蜂蜜芥末(Honey Mustard)

争议[编辑]

洋芋片爭議[编辑]

2008年7月4日,英國高等法院判決,品客「薯片」其實不是「薯片」,因為產品的馬鈴薯成份只有42%,而外形、口感都和真正的薯片不同。這是應P&G公司提出的上訴所作的判決。因為這個判決,品客「薯片」不用繳納對薯片徵收的17.5%的增值稅,而得以和普通食物一樣免稅[3][4][5]

然而,在2009年4月,英國上訴庭推翻了高等法院判決,品客「薯片」必須繳納對薯片徵收的增值稅[6]。寶洁公司發言人說在等待法院最後判決的同時,寶洁已經預防性地繳清稅務局所要求的款項。[7]

被查驗出含有致癌物质[编辑]

注释[编辑]

  1. ^ 寶僑家品|品客, 查阅日期:2014-01-24, 品客官网
  2. ^ 三少四壯集-喉糖與翹鬍子洋芋片. 中國時報. 2013-03-08 [2014-01-24]. 
  3. ^ Pringles 'are not potato crisps'. UK: BBC. 2008-07-04 (英文). "Mr Justice Warren ruled that Pringles were not "made from the potato" - as set out in the definition laid down by the 1994 VAT Act." 
  4. ^ 英法院裁定品客薯片非薯片. 香港: 蘋果日報. 2008-07-06 (中文(香港)‎). "法官沃倫(JusticeWarren)指,消費者將品客劃歸為薯片,但根據法律規定,需徵稅的薯仔食品要「完全或主要由馬鈴薯製成」,品客的薯仔成份只佔42%,未符合規定,所以判寶潔得直。" 
  5. ^ 2008 EWHC 1558 (Ch) 寶鹼公司(UK) 對壘 英國稅務與關稅局, British and Irish Legal Information Institute, 2008-7-4, (英文). This appeal is allowed because Regular Pringles are not, on the facts found, products "made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch" within excepted item 5.
  6. ^ 2009 EWCA Civ 407 英國稅務與關稅局 對壘 寶鹼公司(UK), British and Irish Legal Information Institute, 2009-5-20, (英文). In the course of his urbane submissions on the "made from" aspect of Regular Pringles Mr Cordara QC referred to "the potato as a fiscal contaminant", the "essential characteristics of the paradigm potato crisp", the absence of "findings of potatoness" and the "quantitative role of the potato." In contending that Pringles (42% potato, 33% fat) were not "made from" the potato he put forward this proposition:"If a product has a number of significant ingredients it cannot be said to be 'made from' one of them." So it is argued that Regular Pringles, which also contain fat and flour, cannot be said to be "made from the potato." 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 entitled 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.
  7. ^ Pringles lose Appeal Court case. UK: BBC. 2009-05-20 (英文). "But a spokesperson for Procter & Gamble said the company had been paying VAT on the snack pending the appeal process, and so was not liable for any back taxes." 
  8. ^ 南方都市报关于致癌进口品客薯片的报道
  9. ^ 宝洁公司对品客致癌事件的官方回应

外部链接[编辑]