品客
品客(英語:Pringles,舊譯「翹鬍子洋芋片」[1][2])是源自美國的馬鈴薯零食品牌,原屬寶僑旗下,後售予家樂氏。其商標是一個有著咖啡色大鬍子和紅色領結的人臉。
品客 | |
---|---|
![]() 品客商標 | |
品客洋芋片 | |
產品類型 | 洋芋片 |
持有者 | 家樂氏 |
國家/地區 | ![]() |
建立 | 1967年在美國上市 1991年在英國上市 |
目標市場 | ![]() |
前任持有者 | 寶鹼(1967–2012) |
網站 | pringles |
歷史
编辑1967年,寶潔以「Pringle's Newfangled Potato Chips」之名面市,1968年開始改為現稱,目前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。2012年2月15日,宝洁将品客以27亿美元现金出售予美國食品大廠家樂氏。
品客的特色在於採用厚片波浪造型來增加口感(嚴格來說是双曲抛物面造型),且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·鮑爾所發明,鮑爾是位有機化學家與食品保存技術人員,在寶潔公司從事研發與品管工作。他在過世前,要求將骨灰放入他所發明的品客包裝筒。[3]
品客產品容量大小有許多種,從最早的1200公克至今日常見的800公克、169公克、110公克以及小罐59公克包裝。
主要成分
编辑一罐品客標準版從美國製造的原味洋芋片,其成份可能包含:(香港/臺灣版)馬鈴薯、葵花油、米粉、小麥澱粉、麥芽糊精、乳化劑(脂肪酸一甘油脂與脂肪酸二甘油脂/脂肪酸甘油脂〔植物來源〕)、鹽、葡萄糖、酸度調節劑(檸檬酸)等。
販售口味
编辑爭議
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「洋芋片」其實不是「洋芋片」,因為產品的馬鈴薯成份只有42%,而外形、口感都和真正的洋芋片不同。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「洋芋片」不用繳納對洋芋片徵收的17.5%的增值稅,而得以和普通食物一樣免稅[4][5][6]。
然而,在2009年4月,英國上訴庭推翻了高等法院判決,品客「洋芋片」必須繳納對洋芋片徵收的增值稅[7]。寶僑公司發言人說在等待法院最後判決的同時,寶僑已經預防性地繳清稅務局所要求的款項。[8]
新口味爭議
编辑品客在2015年於各地推出了新包裝的洋芋片,每份重量由134g調整為110g,包裝罐的直徑縮小,風味也做了調整。 但是此變化收到了消費者褒貶不一的回應,部分民眾抱怨,新版包裝罐的小尺寸使他們難以伸手進入罐中,而風味也不如以前強烈[9];對此品客公司表示,這些變化是因為生產工廠所在地由美國改變成馬來西亞,尺寸與價格部分則是因應原物料上漲而做調整。[10]
被查驗出含有致癌物质
编辑軼事
编辑前香港財政司司長曾俊華有「鬍鬚曾」及「薯片叔叔」的稱號(因其二撇雞與品客薯片裡的頭像相似而得名),但他個人並不在意。現在「薯片」更是他的別名之一。
參考資料
编辑- ^ 寶僑家品|品客 (页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆), 查閱日期:2014-01-24, 品客官網
- ^ 三少四壯集-喉糖與翹鬍子洋芋片. 中國時報. 2013-03-08 [2014-01-24]. (原始内容存档于2014-02-01).
- ^ SCOTT HORSLEY. Inventor's Ashes Buried in His Creation: Pringles Can. NPR. 2008-06-03 [2022-11-09]. (原始内容存档于2022-12-03).
- ^ Pringles 'are not potato crisps'. UK: BBC. 2008-07-04 [2008-07-06]. (原始内容存档于2017-08-30) (英语).
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.
- ^ 英法院裁定品客薯片非薯片. 香港: 蘋果日報. 2008-07-06 [2008-07-06]. (原始内容存档于2008-07-09) (中文(香港)).
法官沃倫(JusticeWarren)指,消費者將品客劃歸為洋芋片,但根據法律規定,需徵稅的洋芋食品要「完全或主要由馬鈴薯製成」,品客的洋芋成份只佔42%,未符合規定,所以判寶僑得直。
- ^ 2008 EWHC 1558 (Ch) 寶鹼公司(UK) 對壘 英國稅務與關稅局 (页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆), 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.
- ^ 2009 EWCA Civ 407 英國稅務與關稅局 對壘 寶鹼公司(UK) (页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆), 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.
- ^ Pringles lose Appeal Court case. UK: BBC. 2009-05-20 [2010-04-16]. (原始内容存档于2020-11-09) (英语).
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.
- ^ 存档副本. [2016-08-01]. (原始内容存档于2020-12-09).
- ^ 存档副本. [2016-08-01]. (原始内容存档于2020-11-11).
- ^ 南方都市报关于致癌进口品客薯片的报道. [2008-08-19]. (原始内容存档于2019-08-01).
- ^ 宝洁公司对品客致癌事件的官方回应. [2008-08-19]. (原始内容存档于2019-08-01).