Ken abd David,, You might find this thread of interest.
Eugene Mechtly On Apr 20, 2014, at 7:26 AM, kilopascal <kilopas...@cox.net<mailto:kilopas...@cox.net>> wrote: If you haven’t used it yet, I would unwrap it and place it on a balance and see if its mass exceeds 100 g. If it does, then its intent was to be 100 g, but some marketing fool took the 100 g and converted it to ounces as 3.5274 ounces and rounded it to 3.5 ounces. Then to comply with FPLA, the 3.5 ounce was back converted to 99.2233 g and rounded to 99.2 g. What brand is it? This happens quite often. I’ve seen it with millimetres, where 25 mm was converted to 1 in and back converted to 25.4 mm. From: mechtly, eugene a<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu> Sent: Saturday, 2014-04-19 17:09 To: kilopascal<mailto:kilopas...@cox.net> Cc: mechtly, eugene a<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu> ; U.S. Metric Association<mailto:usma@colostate.edu> Subject: Re: [USMA:53737] Declarations of Net Amounts Inside Containers I just bought a bar of “Shave Soap.” “NET 3.5 OZ (99.2 g)” is printed of the cardboard container as the declaration of net amount provided. What is your analysis of this declaration? Why was the fill amount not 100 grams? EAM. On Apr 19, 2014, at 11:18 AM, kilopascal <kilopas...@cox.net<mailto:kilopas...@cox.net>> wrote: Eugene & Carleton, This would be an interesting survey question? Of the 3 contents declarations below, which number would you pay attention to first? second? and third? I would bet that most people would pick up on the 89 ounces first and ignore the other two. If the ounces were removed and only the pints and litres stood, the pints would be preferred over the litres. Most people prefer whole numbers and the simpler the better. Decimal parts in any way shape or form are a turn off. But one decimal place would be preferred over two places. Yes, you are right, 3 L or 2.5 L (read as two and a half) would get around having to utter the word “point”. This is one of the reasons the 0.009 $ trick works. People ignore the that last “9” and fail to round up, so they see a cheaper price and that is what is intended. Removing all of the USC and leaving only 2.63 L would be a turn off and the people who do pay attention to the contents declarations would be fuming with anger. So there would have to be some sort of fill modification in order to get the numbers in a friendly format. Nutritional labels are what they are and I’m sure ignored by most and of course, there was a recent campaign to rid the labels of grams and millilitres for teaspoons. So, yes there is some rejection of the metric only on labels. The practice of reducing the size while keeping the price the same is not deceptive. It is no different than keeping the size the same and increasing the price. Where is one better over the other? As long as the size is defined on the package, it is up to the consumer to determine for himself/herself if the cost is justified. If they are going to change the size, it should be in a whole number of grams. I never said anything about rounding to 30 g or 30 mL. I said the ounce should be standardised to 30 g and 30 mL. The FDA already did this, NIST should follow. This will make it easier for comparing or converting onces sizes from round numbers to non-round metric values to rounded metric values. There would no longer be 453 g or 453.6 g or 454 g or any other nonsense when pound sizes are soft converted. A pound will appear as either 450 g or 480 g, which ever there packer decides. 30 g or mL increments make it easier to portion food and drinks into halves, thirds, quarters, fifths, sixths, etc. 450 g of hamburger divided 3 ways is 150 g each. Much easier than dividing 16 ounces into 3 on the old system. This is a rebuttal to those who claim metric units can’t be divided by 3. By redefining the ounce to a value of 30, and allowing producers to continue in their ounce world would make it simpler for us using metric. We would get rounded, whole numbers with lots of divisors to work with. A win-win situation for us. Of course, amounts <30 would not be affected. We can’t force the others to follow us, but what we can do is try to make it friendly to our side when they don’t want to. [USMA:53737] Declarations of Net Amounts Inside Containers mechtly, eugene a Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:16:03 -0700 I have in my refrigerator a plastic container which bears the declaration of net amount of lemonade inside: “2.63 L (2.7 QT) 89 FL OZ” While this declaration is not “rounded” in liters or in any of the other units of measurement employed, the declaration probably meets all the requirements of the existing FPLA. My recommendation would be a targeted “fill amount” of 2.50 liters (alone), or perhaps 3 liters (alone), if 3.00 liters can fit inside this very same container, and after an amended FPLA permits. After this container is emptied, I intent to measure its maximum capacity. Eugene Mechtly On Apr 18, 2014, at 12:40 PM, mechtly, eugene a <mech...@illinois.edu<http://illinois.edu/><mailto:mech...@illinois.edu>> wrote: kPa, How do you define “rounding”; a numerical value of one non-zero digit, two digits one of which must be zero, three digits two of which must be zero, or what? Look at the labels of Nutrition Facts. They are *not* all rounded numerical values in grams or milliliters! These “not rounded numerical values” are not rejected by the public. Even the FPLA does not impose *rounded* values on packagers. Freedom of net-amount sizes must be retained whether the units are SI or not SI for declarations of net amounts inside packages or containers! Freedom of net-amount sizes does, however, lend itself to the deceptive practice of keeping the retail price constant while decreasing the net amount provided. e.g. A bar of candy offered, over time, at a constant retail price but in ever decreasing net amounts of, say, 30 g, 29 g, 28 g, 27g, 26 g, 25 g, etc., etc. How many consumers notice? Rounding *always* to 30 gram or to 30 milliliter increments is *not* acceptable! Where do you buy super glue in 30 gram tubes, or eye drops in a 30 milliliter vile? I oppose *mandated* net fills of 30 g or 30 ml. I do agree, however, that awkward net fills such as 28.3 g or 29.6 ml would be unattractive to consumers, if standing alone. EAM On Apr 18, 2014, at 6:15 AM, kilopascal <kilopas...@cox.net<http://cox.net/><mailto:kilopas...@cox.net>> wrote: Eugene, I think we have to be very careful when we want the FPLA to be amended to show metric only. It can actually backfire on us. In order for the public to accept metric only labels, the products have to be a round metric values. Metric will become hated even more if rounded USC was dropped for non-rounded metric. Next time you are in any shop, look at the packaging and look hard at both numbers. Think what the packaging will look like if the non-rounded metric stands alone. This will not only anger most Americans it will increase the hatred of the metric system. We do want the option for metric only, but we want the metric values to be rounded and easy to work with. The FDA has already redefined the ounce for their purposes to 30 g and 30 mL. This should be adopted universally in the US and all food products should be modified so that their contents are in increments of 30 g or mL at the least. A pound or pint could either be rounded down to 450 g or mL or up to 480 g or mL. We have to be realistic to some degree and cannot expect the full change to metric sizes. Some sort of intermediary rounded sizes must come into place first. It would be nice to have standard metric fill sizes like increments of 100 mL, g or 1 L or kg. But this is too much and would be resisted, especially by the industry. This is why metrication has to be a coordinated government project in the exact same way it was done in Australia. Otherwise you will end up with an even bigger mess than we have now. Those who think metrication was thwarted in the ‘70s are unaware that USC was in use 100 % before then and now, even if hidden from most people, it is pretty much half and half. The US is a nation divided against itself. [USMA:53731] Re: costco mechtly, eugene a Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:49:27 -0700 Carleton, By “stupid law” I’m sure you mean the existing Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) which *requires* duality (e.g. both grams and ounces) on many package labels; except on labels of Nutrition Facts which use only grams or milliliters for food components; and ounces, only for serving sizes. Labels of Nutrition Facts, regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are somehow (thankfully) exempt from the duality requirement of the FPLA! By promoting Unit Pricing, not required by the FPLA, we might be able to persuade more regulating federal agencies (e.g. the FTC) to circumvent the duality requirement of the FPLA! Eugene Mechtly. …………………. <carlet...@comcast.net<http://comcast.net/><http://comcast.net/><mailto:carlet...@comcast.net>> wrote: The response from Costco was very good. It was a custom letter, and was written with some thought, and not a collection of canned Customer Relations response paragraphs. Unforunately the arcane labeling requirements imposed by various government agencies (including the requirement to "explain" gallons in terms of ounces, too) adds to the mess. And then there are the baked and cooked goods in Costco stores, made and packaged in the store itself, which according to current Federal law don't need metric equivalents at all. Costco does follow the law, but the law is stupid. Carleton Loyal Costco member for many years, and whose 27 year old son works there (and already has 33,000 in his 401(k)) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/costco-profit_n_2859250.html<http://www.politicususa.com/2013/03/12/costco-proves-republicans-wrong-paying-living-wage-watching-profits-soar.html> ________________________________ From: "John Altounji" <phy...@msn.com<http://msn.com/><http://msn.com/><mailto:phy...@msn.com>> To: "USMA" <usma@colostate.edu<mailto:usma@colostate.edu><mailto:usma@colostate.edu><mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:11:50 PM Subject: [USMA:53723] costco Attached is the response from Costco and my draft. If you think I should amend anything, please share with me. I do not know how much we can get out of this, but at least we have a contact. John Altounji One size does not fit all. Social promotion ruined Education.
