The largest branches of the major supermarket chains in the UK (Tesco, Asda,
etc) can have as many as 50 000 separate products on their shelves. I would
venture to say that Jerry's estimate of >90% being labelled metric only is
conservative - probably like >95%. Tesco is huge (it was recently estimated
that 8% of ALL UK retail consumer spending - not just supermarkets - is spent
in Tesco stores. Imagine a large US supermaket combined with a large Wal-Mart
- that is a typical large Tesco store, my local one has 40 checkouts, although
it's rare for more than 30 to be 'manned' at any one time). Whether you want a
bottle of wine, packet of fresh Scottish salmon, a flat screen TV, all kinds of
exotic foods (e.g. imported Italian octopus), or a laser printer (not to
mention all your routine shopping), you can get it at a Tesco.
The only imperial items or descriptions you will see at Tesco and the other
supermarkets are:
TV and computer screens (but that seems to be universal around the world). But
laptop computers will have their weights given in kg only.
The customer weigh scales at the fruit and veg aisles (dual calibrated, but not
legal for trade - the legal scales at the checkouts are metric only).
Some milk (but not all - I recently bought some soya milk, 500 mL).
Some (but by no means all) unit display pricing on loose fruit and veg - but
metric is first and much more prominent. (Unit pricing - e.g. £/kg, £/L, etc -
is mandatory for most food and drink items, and is displayed on the shelf edge
as part of the item pricing. All unit pricing on all non-loose items - 98% of
the total store's food and drink - is metric only.)
And that is about it. As Jerry says, these are remnants, and will surely die
out as the older generations pass on (and those of the younger generation, who
for some weird reason like imperial, come to realise how ignorant they are, and
the damage they are doing to our children who HAVE to grow up in a metric world
- this last point alone should make these people ashamed of themselves).
It comes down to attitude. I remember my mother, now 89, managing to get used
to millilitres when they were introduced in the UK in the early 1970s -
em-ells, she called them. If she can do it, then so can people like Stephen
Humphreys.
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:12 AM
Subject: [USMA:44978] RE: Supplementary indications
Aside from milk, are there any other products sold in supermarkets in the UK?
One gets the impression that all one can buy is milk.
In the US our shelves are stocked with thousands of different items. What
about the UK? Don't they have thousands of different items for sale too? And
aren't the vast majority of them (>90 %) labeled in rounded metric only?
So what does it really mean if you find some remnant product like milk in a
remnant size? Even with that in mind it isn't 100 % in remnant units, as there
is rounded metric milk sizes too.
Stephen's claim that he purchases items by their "visible scale" proves the
vast majority of products are labeled in rounded metric only. Otherwise
Stephen would know their imperial size and make mention of it frequently
instead of constantly sounding like a broken 300 mm record and repeating the
same old dribble about milk container sizes.
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ken Cooper <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2009 4:46:40 PM
Subject: [USMA:44964] RE: Supplementary indications
Stephen said
"Realistically though - it still must be the case that people pick up a
can, tin, bottle etc of red bull/coke/etc on visual size rather than be
specific about the numbering on the side of the product"
How would you describe this can then Stephen? 473 ml/1 US pt isn't
exactly a common size in the UK.
Without using measurement, how can you distinguish it from the 440 ml &
500 ml cans that are commonly available?
"(even if "he" [ahem] wouldn't allow it lol!)".
It's you that claims I'm a TSO, Stephen. That's the sort of decisions
they make.
"Obviously the figures are there to meet regulations but ultimately the
customer would choose a packed item on it's visual scale."
Have you been to Tesco recently Stephen? Have you seen the new size of
Rice Krispie packages? Can you tell them apart from the 500 g packs on a
"visual scale"?
"I see the 2l coke and pint of milk as the only real examples where
figures are used in packed supermarket items."
Yeah. No-one has ever suggested that a bag of sugar can be used to
visualise a kilogramme. And wine doesn't come in a standard 750ml "wine bottle"
or anything.
And didn't you go on (and on & on) about a waffle marked with a
supplementary imperial indication?
"In fact a lot of supermarkets have adopted putting a large unitless
number on the side of the cartons that represents the number of pints"
A lot? Is that one or two? What a ridiculous exaggeration.
Ezra - In case you were deliberately mislead - yes there are other
firms that pack milk in round metric but as you look at the shelves the
"standard" milks - so to speak - ie the ordinary skimmed, semi, and full fat -
make up the vast visual bulk (usually on a platform and then palleted up
beneath the platform).
Yes Stephen. This is true in Tesco. How about standard milks in the
Scottish Co-op? As I told you when we discussed this last, the sizes available
are 500ml, 568ml/1pt, 1 litre, 2 litres & 3 litres. In this shop, the "vast
visual bulk" is metric only, with some dual as opposed to your example, where
the "vast visual bulk" is dual, with some metric-only.
It is easy to find individual examples of shops ranging from 100% dual
to 100% metric-only.
Would you agree with the fact that there is practically no
Imperial-only milk available in supermarkets as they do not sell returnable
containers? As I have stated, there is an increasing amount of "metric-only"
like Cravendale or Fresh'n'Lo, which is not all soya, goat or "dog" milk (I
assume that pregnancy brought that non-existant product to your mind?)
--- On Fri, 1/5/09, Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail..com> wrote:
From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com>
Subject: [USMA:44948] RE: Supplementary indications
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Date: Friday, 1 May, 2009, 9:22 AM
Realistically though - it still must be the case that people pick up
a can, tin, bottle etc of red bull/coke/etc on visual size rather than be
specific about the numbering on the side of the product (even if "he" [ahem]
wouldn't allow it lol!).
Obviously the figures are there to meet regulations but ultimately
the customer would choose a packed item on it's visual scale.
Needless to say I fully understand why this is an important topic for
those who are (genuinely) pro-metric though.
In the UK there's a bit of an attachment to the "pinta" in respect to
milk and just as the 2 liter bottle of coke has become popular the pint-of-milk
remains popular regarding actual usage of numbers and packed items. I see the
2l coke and pint of milk as the only real examples where figures are used in
packed supermarket items. In fact a lot of supermarkets have adopted putting a
large unitless number on the side of the cartons that represents the number of
pints therein (I wonder if this is to allow that number to have precedence but
be within the rules due to lack of words).
Ezra - In case you were deliberately mislead - yes there are other
firms that pack milk in round metric but as you look at the shelves the
"standard" milks - so to speak - ie the ordinary skimmed, semi, and full fat -
make up the vast visual bulk (usually on a platform and then palleted up
beneath the platform). I concur with MArtin entirely regarding this point.
Thus to claim that 'metric milk' makes up a large proportion of milks is
extremely misleading as if you looked at the entire milk counter you'll see
mainly the 'ordinary' milk containers - which show imperial/metric notation.
If you look about for goat milk, soya milk, milk from a specific farm, low
lactose milk, and possibly Dog milk in Argyll and Bute!, then combined they
could be used to exaggerate the different available milk brands but this
ignores the visual and most sold milk types. Unfortunately I cannot think of
another similar example to further illustrate the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 02:32:49 +0000
From: ezra.steinb...@comcast.net
To: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:44938] Supplementary indications
Yes, here's another interesting side effect of the FPLA not yet being
amended to allow metric-only labeling.
My hunch is that Red Bull would switch to a rational metric size once
the amendment is ever adopted!
Speaking of metric-only labeling options, I'm wondering if Paul
Trusten has any news regarding New York State and the UPLR?
Ezra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Cooper" <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com>
To: "Ezra Steinberg" <ezra.steinb...@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:04:24 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Your question on "Metric Views"
That's just about it, Ezra.
The only time any action would be likely to be taken would be
if the US pint wasn't specifically described as such.
I wouldn't allow "473 ml 1 pt" on a package for sale in the UK.
Interestingly, Red Bull (an Austrian energy drink) have just
introduced a new 473 ml size. There's no supplementary indication marked on the
cans I've seen, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same cans (with different
markings) appeared in the US
--- On Wed, 29/4/09, Ezra Steinberg
<ezra.steinb...@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Ezra Steinberg <ezra.steinb...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Your question on "Metric Views"
To: "Ken Cooper" <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 2:22 AM
Thanks for all the pertinent detail, Ken. That really clears
it up.
Bottom line: manufacturers can continue to put Imperial units
on their packages as they have done before and no one will squeak about it so
long as they comply with all the other laws that you have pointed out.
Cheers,
Ezra
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Cooper
To: ezra.steinb...@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 6:49 PM
Subject: Your question on "Metric Views"
Ezra
I note that you have asked a question on "Metric
Views" regarding my statement that
“On 1/1/2010, Imperial loses its status as a
“supplementary indication”.. IMO, that doesn’t mean that it is forbidden from
appearing (as long as the metric measure is primary)”
I'll try to set out my thoughts on this matter below.
Firstly, some context. My statement above was made in
response to Gene's questions about markings on packages. For the avoidance of
doubt, I am referring to packages made up on metric equipment & bearing a
primary metric marking. As an example, lets assume that we are talking about a
package of sausages made up on a metric scale that works in 2 g divisions. The
package weighs 454 g.
Currently, UK law requires that the package must be
marked "454 g". The packer may also choose to mark the "e-mark" (a metrological
passport throughout the EEC) and a supplementary indication.
The full label W&M label will therefore read "454 g e
1 lb"
This is currently explicitly permitted by virtue of
Section 8 (5A) of the Weights & Measures Act 1985
8 (5A) Nothing in this section precludes the use for
trade up to and including 31st December 2009 of any supplementary indication;
and for this purpose any indication of quantity ('the imperial indication') is
a supplementary indication if—
a) it is expressed in a unit of measurement other
than a metric unit,
b) it accompanies an indication of quantity expressed
in a metric unit ('the metric indication') and is not itself authorised for use
in the circumstances as a primary indication of quantity, and
c) the metric indication is the more prominent, the
imperial indication being, in particular, expressed in characters no larger
than those of the metric indication.
The effect of this section, as I state in my original
post, is that Imperial loses it's status as a supplementary indication on
1/1/2010.
Pretty black & white so far, I hope!
Now we get into legal argument........
If I was a trader that wished to continue dual
marking, I would frame my argument like this:-
I am weighing the goods in metric & marking the goods
in metric. Therefore my metric equipment is in use for trade & the weight
determined by that equipment is the weight marked upon the pack of sausages.
Under UK criminal law, an act is legal unless it is
specifically forbidden.
I would agree that imperial is no longer permitted as
a supplementary indication, but can you point me at the section of the Weights
& Measures Act that specifically forbids me from marking additional information
in another measurement system? I'm using metric for trade purposes - not
imperial!
Now, the current opinion in O'Keefe states
Quantity of goods
This term does not appear to have received any
judicial interpretation, at least in the context of weights and measures
legislation. The expression is now causing difficulties due on the one hand to
the general prohibition of the 'use for trade' of imperial units of measurement
(by s 8), and on the other, to the absence of any more general prohibition of
the use of such units, which might have more properly reflected the requirement
of Council Directive 80/181/EEC as implemented in the UK by the Units of
Measurement Regulations 1986,
I cannot see a UK court convicting a defendant of
"use for trade" of imperial measurement after 1/1/10 when he has complied with
all relevant legislation regarding using metric equipment & marking a metric
weight on the package (assuming that the additional imperial information is
less prominent than the metric weight)
This is purely my opinion, and will probably never be
tested in a court now that the EU have announced the proposed changes to
80/181/EEC.
For the avoidance of doubt, the UK Government may
decide to enact legislation that specifically retains the definition of
"Supplementary Indications", but IMO, there is no need for this legislation as
there is nothing that specifically bans imperial from appearing.
Finally, I would point out that (as far as I am
aware) no action has been taken against US manufacturers that have marked "473
ml 1 US Pt" on packages sold in the UK. The US Pint is not an authorised
supplementary indication, therefore if my interpretation of the law is
incorrect, any package marked in this manner would be illegal.
The fact that no enforcement action has been taken
would tend to support my views on this matter.
Feel free to share this email if you see fit. If
anyone disagrees with my interpretation, challenge them to draft a criminal
charge under the Weights & Measures Act 1985 that they think would stand up in
court. Over the last few years, I've asked various pro-met & pro-imp UK posters
to do this and no-one has ever come up with a suggested section number to frame
the charge around never mind an actual draft charge!
"Ken"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
" Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 Optimised for MSN. " Download Now
