I know the following: Freedom 2 Measure, Americans for Customary Weights and
Measures and WAM (We Aint Metric). I do not know whther the last group still
exists. It is mentioned in Alders book about the meridian measurement.
Freedom to Measure has a website, but I cannot remember its URL right
I know the following: Freedom 2 Measure, Americans for Customary Weights
and
Measures and WAM (We Aint Metric). I do not know whther the last group
still
exists. It is mentioned in Alders book about the meridian measurement.
Freedom to Measure has a website, but I cannot remember its URL
At 02 07 03, 07:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regulations requiring
rational packaging would go a long way toward ending the practice of
manufacturers disguising price increases by instead downsizing the
product. They would have to be upfront and honest about it.
...
There will be the argument
(html posting converted back to plain text)
The EU is moving away from package size regulation and relying instead on
unit pricing regulation. Germany has just eliminated a whole category (all
liquid sizes I think) of size regulations.
An EU report says:
I just joined this thread in midstream, and I agree
that the number of people who do price comparisons and study unit prices is
small. Sometimes I feel like doing it, and sometimes I don't, and my ambivalence
is due to my understanding that the consumer marketplace is more of a shell game
At 03 07 03, 10:41 AM, Paul Trusten, R.Ph. wrote:
Actually,
now that we bring up this subject, it may be that the metric system in
the hands of a metric-savvy public would TEND to increase the number of
consumers who would see through the packaging chicanery that goes on.
Candy bars labeled to
In a message dated 7/3/2003 10:57:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
At 03 07 03, 10:41 AM, Paul Trusten, R.Ph. wrote:
Actually, now that we bring up this subject, it may be that the metric system in the
hands of a metric-savvy public would TEND to increase the number
Jim Elwell wrote im USMA 26230:
For those who want rational package sizes, I suggest you have a long
ways to go to demonstrate any net benefit to them.
Jim Elwell, CAMS
I agree with Jim. In Canada our *Consumer Packaging and Labelling
Act* requires a metric statement of quantity, but not a
Perhaps one day the paint industries of the respective countries will agree on a
four-liter can of paint?
From: Joseph B. Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2003/07/03 Thu PM 03:07:49 EDT
To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [USMA:26235] Re: Kraft plans to cut snack sizes
Jim
That would be great, I would think. But, is Sherwin Williams truly eager to live up to
their motto, and cover the earth? If they do, then they would want to retool to make
one size can of paint in that size range--5 liters--for US domestic consumption as
well as for export. But, what about
In a message dated 2003-07-03 16:17:21 Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For those interested in spin control...
Same story also appeared on PRNewsWire, which I suspect has a higher
circulation than Canada Newswire. Screen capture attached.
Nat
"PRNewswire" isn't an Associated
Strange bit of reasoning, of course. With that logic one could claim
that inch-pound units are not permissible today because you can't label
quantities using inch-pound only. Bollux!
Ezra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2003-07-03 16:17:21 Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 2003-07-04 05.28, Paul Trusten at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps one day the paint industries of the respective countries will agree on
a four-liter can of paint?
Dear Paul,
That's pretty much the way that paint tin sizes evolved in Australia over
the last thirty years (since metrication
13 matches
Mail list logo
