2001-09-01
I don't see how it would be disastrous. A person who uses imperial would
ask for a pound and get 500 g. I doubt they would notice the difference.
The scales, however would be in kilograms and the merchant would weighs out
500 g when a pound is asked for instead of fiddling with 454 g conversion
factors. I'm sure most guess anyway.
This would require a change to kilogram scales in the US, which should just
require a flip of a switch (internally) on digital scales. But, in Canada
and Britain, where the scales are already or predominately in kilograms the
switch would go un-noticed.
When I was in Calgary a few moths ago, the deli counter was all in 100 g
(hectogram) units at the stores I visited. Nothing was priced per pound.
The only thing I saw priced per pound, were produce sold in bulk. Like
bunches of carrots or heads of lettuce. Items that were already a fixed
size by nature, but were priced in pounds in large text and kilograms in
small text. You could not ask for a given number of pounds, just take what
was there.
But, where you would ask, everything was priced in "hectograms" with no
imperial conversions.
However, well over 90 % of pre-packaged goods were labeled in metric only,
even if about half the products were soft conversions of US sizes.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, 2001-09-01 13:43
Subject: [USMA:15096] Re: Fw: Weights and Measures
> John Kilopascal wrote in USMA 15094:
>
> >Another thing to ask is if they will accept changing the value of
imperial
> >units to match those of metric. If they try to fall back on heritage,
ask
> >them "what heritage?", as the values of imperial units have changed
> >throughout history every so often, so what is wrong with one more change?
> >It seems changing the values of imperial units is part of imperials
heritage
> >and it would be keeping with that heritage to change the values again.
> >
> >The advantages would out-weigh the disadvantages: 1.) The pound could be
> >set equal to 500 g, thus making it equal to the livre and pfund. 2.) It
> >would make comparison shopping easier for those who think in imperial and
> >products are in SI. 3.) Confusion resulting from similar names, but
> >different values, such as: mile, nautical mile; US pint/quart/gallon and
UK
> >pint/quart/gallon; short ton, long ton, tonne, metric ton - all close in
> >value but not the same, etc. 4.) It is common practice to interchange
the
> >unit names yard and metre, especially in the press, if the yard is set
equal
> >to the metre then either term will mean the same thing. 5.) And more...
>
>
> That is a disastrous suggestion. One would have to say "old pounds" or
> "new pounds", otherwise there would be dangerous confusion. I don't know
> how European countries managed to convert the livre or Pfund to 500 grams,
> but I would not want to wish this confusion on the American or Canadian
> public.
>
> In Canada it is legal to sell loose retail food by the kilogram or 100
> grams, or by the pound or ounce. It has just struck me that one of the
> reasons that most food is priced by the pound is that the price by the
> kilogram looks too large, and "100 g" takes more space on the price tag
> than "lb.". That would not apply if Metric Commission Canada had not
> frowned upon hectogram, dekagram, and decigram. Pricing by the pound
(lb.)
> has no advantage over pricing by the hectogram (hg).
>
> Joseph B. Reid
> 17 Glebe Road West
> Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
>
