kPa, I do understand your point. The number 396.893 is certainly less friendly than the number 14, but there is *no prospect* of official (legal) "redefinition" of the names and values of units outside the SI.
There is some hope of changing "fill sizes" to 100 g, 300 g, 500 g, 700 g etc.; either in existing containers, or in newly created containers, which FMA members create on a regular basis to gain market share (and sometimes to increase 'unit price' and profits without notice by the public). I do not see an urgent need for sizes to be divided precisely into even quarters, halves, 3rds, 16th or 12th. I so agree that the FPLA can and should be amended to be both more metric and more friendly to the public! Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: Kilopascal [kilopas...@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:54 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:53197] metric ounces of 30 g and 30 mL Eugene, You misunderstood the point I was trying to make. When I made the comment about being scared away I was thinking of dual labeled products on US supermarket and department store shelves. Those awkward conversion factors result in metric numbers that do in fact scare consumers away from metrication. What do you think the average person thinks of a rounded 14 ounce package with 396.893 g as a conversion? If it was 400 g, then the fright is not there. If the conversion factors had been made simple, like 30 g for an ounce and 30 mL for a fluid ounce, the result would have been rounded metric numbers with no decimals that one can't easily do mathematical calculations with. With sensible conversions metrication could have happened by now. Instead of a pound we could have had packages of 480 g instead of 453.6 or 454 g. Yes, 500 g may be preferable, but 480 g works just as well. It can be be divided into parts by factors of 2 and 3. 14 ounces in this case would be 420 g. I would treat this as 400 g with a 20 g bonus. Americans are hooked on fractions and I can't see that changing. So a 480 g package can be divided by both 12 & 16 and is more friendly to divisions by 3 than ounces are. Try dividing a pound into 2-ths. It can't be done, but 480 g can. Maybe you don't see a need to divided sizes into 16-ths or 12-ths, but some people do and sizes in increments of 30 g is more friendly to this than USC is. The FMA does not want to amend the FPLA for fear of going to metric sizes like 100 g, 200 g, 500 g and 1000 g, but they might not have a problem with metricated ounces that work best for metric supporters as well as metric opponents. If we want to get more of the public to accept metrication, we need to make metric more friendly on the labels that the public sees daily. If we don't metrication will always be contested. [USMA:53197] RE: You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board. | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=usma@colostate.edu&q=subject:%22%5BUSMA%3A53197%5D+RE%3A+You+know+what+the+rest+of+the+world+has+figured+out%3F+The+metric+system.+It%E2%80%99s+time+the+US+got+on+board.+%7C+Plugged+In%2C+Scientific+American+Blog+Network%22> mechtly, eugene a<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=usma@colostate.edu&q=from:%22mechtly%2C+eugene+a%22> Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:41:55 -0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=usma@colostate.edu&q=date:20130821> kPa, First, the so-called "conversion factors" are in reality the *definitions* of non-SI units, definitions of units which are "outside the SI." They do not scare anyone who has even only an introductory understanding of SI! Second, the blog you cite, which adulterates the process of "metrication" as "metrification" with the "if" was obviously not written by a professional in NIST, although the conclusion of the need for the transition to SI is accurately stated. Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: Kilopascal [kilopas...@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:45 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board. | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network The old question that asks: With friends like this who needs enemies, sure applies here. First the NIST comes up with conversion factors between USC and SI that will scare anyone away from SI, but now they have the ignorance to call metrication as metrIFication. There is no IF in metrication.
