Marcus wrote in USMA 23156:
YOUR suggestion/approach to the problem would *certainly* cause that indeed. If I were a consumer living in the US I most probably would if I saw metrication in labels leading to nothing but things like 20 fl.oz. (591 mL) or 591 mL exclusively! Therefore, it's YOUR point of not metricating to rational values that would bring extreme danger to our cause! Let's face it, what sort of "metrication" would this be, a one that only cosmetically changes *labels* to include metric values??? You can't have the cake and eat it, too, Jim!
A change in labels resulting from a *pure* metric-only labeling perspective can actually be an irritant to US consumers. Instead of helping our cause, it will actually be totally detrimental to it. Take the case of the very successful 2-L bottles of pop. Why do you think this size ended up being accepted (and popular!) by consumers in the US in the end? I can bet my neck that perhaps THE main reason was the fact that the NUMBER ITSELF was a rational, nice '2'!!! ;-)
Marcus
Most people do not pay attention to quantity labels. I do not recall any protests in Canada when the labels on retail food packages went metric only. Protests occurred when there was a "danger" that loose food prices might go metric. People thought (wrongfully) they would have to ask for metric quantities when buying their loose foods. The result has been that the government has not enforced the regulation banning advertising pound prices for loose foods.
Joseph B. Reid
17 Glebe Road West
Toronto M5P 1C8 Telephone 416-486-6071
