Gregory Peterson wrote in 11465: >He may have a point, given that there are still Imperial/US standards >being used for package sizing. 341 ml bottles of beer, 398 ml cans of >cola, 454 g bags of bread, etc. What is required in the UK, US and Canada >is a series of standard metric sizes. >I have often wondered why we _apparently_ need to have packaged goods in >various sizes that are half the amount of the previous. All too often the >half-sized package is too little and the full size package is too much >(I'm sure the marketing people insure that this is the case!) > >Finally, "180 g of cheese" sounds like a quantity of cheese to me, though >I would more likely purchase 200 g, 500 g, 800 g (a common size on >Canadian grocery shelves), or 1000 g. When I see "454 g" on a package I >always feel like I'm a victim of product quantity downsizing. I would much >rather buy a package that reads "500 g". > >Six ounces sounds like an increadibly small amount. What "sounds like a >quantity" all depends on what you are used to hearing. > >greg >Saskatoon SK Canada I think Metric Commission Camada was wise to allow "soft" conversion of package sizes. To have insisted on "hard" conversion, or to have promoted it, would have greatly increased the resistance of food processors to metrication. As it is, new food products or new packages are usually in "hard" metric sizes. Joseph B. Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
