On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 19:29:08 -0600, "Gregory. Peterson & Tammy. Booth Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think it's safe to say that we need the implied millilitre and gram precision >while we still have products packaged in soft converted containers. > >If a consumer sees "454 g" or "355 mL" on a container and compares it to a >product of the same price that says "450 g" or "350 mL" the consumer will >choose the larger mass or volume even if the actual package contents could vary >by as much as �10 g or �10 ml. > >I know that in Canada we have tolerance limits for packagaing. Similar >regulations must exist in the United States and elsewhere. > >Maybe when we move to hard metric packaging we can start using dag, hg, cl, dl, >etc. > >At least, if we're going to use ml and g in North America then we should take >advantage of it and package products in quantities such as: "333 ml", "666 g" >in addition to 30, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 500, 600, 750, and 1000. I forgot to say that Sainsbury's had an ad in the Independent this week for offers on spirits. One of these was Jack Daniels: both the ad and the bottle showed '70 cl'. Chris -- Metrication information: http://www.metric.org.uk/ UK legislation, EC Directives, Trading Standards links and more Pro-metric mailing list now available.
