2002-06-06 Nope! I'd bet not one product on American supermarket shelves is in the size it is in, metric or FFU, because of consumer demand. It is what the industry decides on. Soft drinks went metric in the 70s for two reasons. One, because they thought they were going to have to anyway, and two, it rationalised their sizes world-wide.
FFU sizes are preferred because they are less then their rational metric equivalents. Forcing rational metric on the "industry" would be forcing them to give more product. Business doesn't like to give more. They might have to charge more and that doesn't look good for them. Consumers will think they are cheating the public. The government doesn't like it either. Higher prices creates inflation. This would cause the consumers to loose confidence in the government. When a company downsizes its products, you are in effect paying more for less. But, the government doesn't consider it inflation because you are not actually paying more or prices them selves are not going up. I'm sure the government is pressured by industry not to remove the requirement to require FFU on labels. As long as FFU is there, business feels comfortable in sticking with rational FFU. Even if it never will be a requirement, in a time when metric only is permitted, some businesses will gravitate towards rational FFU on their own. Their FFU competitors will then feel obligated to follow suit. They may not like that, so they work hard to keep the requirement to keep FFU on the packages. That is why it is so important for the EU to become strong and to overcome the need to back down to American demands. If the EU tells American companies "tough luck" the next time they whine for an extension, and American companies are hurt financially from EU action, then and only then will some progress towards metrication be made. Notice folks, no one on this side of the Atlantic seems to be in any big hurry to amend any laws to conform to the EU directive. Should we be surprised? John ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 2002-06-06 14:24 Subject: [USMA:20355] RE: Fwd: Question on Dairy Products > Of John Woelflein > >I wrote to USDA and asked why dairy products were > >not yet considering metrication. Here is reply from > >John Rourke of the USDA: > > >>In response to your question, I conducted a survey of > >>consumer products in my household. Of the 50 products > >>surveyed, only 3 were in metric sizes -- a > >>2-liter cola product, a 3-liter wine product and a > >>0.75 liter alcohol product. All other products, > >>including bottled water, were in standard U.S. > >>fluid and weight measures, along with the metric > >>equivalent in parentheses. There were 2 fruit juice > >>products both in 64 ozs. (2 quart) containers. One > >>problem I would see with converting to metric sizes > >>would be in the carbonated beverage vending machine > >>business; would they continue to use the same size > >>12-ounce cans and label it as the metric equiv. of > >>12 ozs.? > > Soft conversion is always an option. I don't know how the UK metricated > these cans, but that is a precedent. > > >>Until American con! ! ! sumers start demanding > >>product in metric sizes, I do not expect the > >>food processing industry to make the conversion. > > Is he suggesting that metric products (such as 2 liter cola) were > introduced in response to consumer demand? > > -- > Terry Simpson > Human Factors Consultant > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.connected-systems.com > Phone: +44 7850 511794 >
