The text below comes from bwmaonline.com.
They have some interesting opininons about metric quantities and their
disadvatages, and I have to say that I partly agree with them.
This is an addition to the old deci - centi - discussion. It is obvious
that pro-metric people stab theirselves in the back when they say that
1000-multiples should be the only allowed, and which they unfortunately
still are.
...
The experience of metric demonstrates that it provides anything but
understandable information. This is
owing largely to the abstract nature of metric units:
Metrication results in huge numbers on food
packaging (185g, 375g, 425g, 440g, etc). This vast
increase in the size of numbers occurs because
metric units are much smaller than customary
units; 28 grams to one ounce, over 450 grams to
one pound, 568 millilitres to one pint, and so
forth.
<snip>
Metric fails to produce consistent or easily
understood sizing scales. Unlike the 16oz pound that is
geared to multiples of two, the kilogram cannot
comfortably accommodate successive halving.
Thus, while some metric packaging builds up as
100g, 200g, 400g, etc, this will not integrate with
one kilogram meaning that other packaging
progresses as 125g, 250g, 500g, etc. Other packaging
uses 75g, 150g, 300g, etc while others still use
110g, 220g, 330g, 440g, etc. A large variety of
packaged foods has no identifiable sizing scale at
all, for example, tomato ketchup and brown
sauce.
The above factors have contributed to a general failure of metric units
to find common acceptance by British people for food and
drink packaging. Technically, metric indicates quantity as accurately as
the
customary system, but it fails to convey meaning or value. Whereas six
ounces of cheese actually sounds
like a quantity of cheese, 180g of cheese is just a very large number.
