On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:00:44 Jim Elwell wrote: >At 7 November 2002, 03:30 PM, Ma Be wrote: >>Firstly, we're dealing with *EU's PARLIAMENT* here, NOT US Congress! US >>manufacturers would need to comply with *EU's rules* if they want to sell >>their products there, just like everybody else would also have to comply >>with US rules when selling products in US territory! This is just fair >>and how things should be: **respect** OTHER countries trade rules (for a >>change!... ;-) ) just like others respect yours! > >Sorry for missing that -- I obviously jumped into the middle of the >discussion and missed that part. > That's alright. Let's move on then.
>My comments were solely aimed at the USA. I couldn't care less what Germany >or England or France or any other country does. In fact, if the EU actually >enforced their trade rules, it would speed up metrication in the USA. No qualms here... >Funny, Marcus, that you point the finger at the US rather than the EU, when >it is clearly the EU's responsibility to enforce its rules, not the US's. > ? I was not 'pointing a finger' at anyone, Jim, but merely stating that we were discussing *EU's business* regarding *its* trading rules. Evidently, you're right that it's EU's task to do, 'enforce its (own) rules'. No doubt about that. ... >Yea, I know, market power, etc. But we don't agree on that at all. > Apparently so... .... It's bad enough to want the >> >government to mandate metric, but now you want the government to mandate >> >what size of packages can be used. >> >>Absolutely! Why? If one opens the door to such ridiculous sizes it won't >>be long till others follow suit, and when they do and people finally >>complain about the stupidity of such mediocre sizes the argument will >>finally pop: "well, let me then label these with what they really are, >>nice 1 qt, 20 oz, 12 oz, 1 lb, etc." Therefore, this is **utterly >>unacceptable** a danger/risk to run! (Sorry...) > >This misses my major point: promotion of "rational" package sizes will SLOW >DOWN US METRICATION!! > A point which I evidently disagree with. 'Rational' package sizes would *certainly* help, meaning that I'm sure consumers would strongly prefer to see things like '1 L', rather than '946 mL'! (Please note that I'm talking about *metric ONLY* labels now!) >Even if we agreed that your so-called "rational" sizes were good, that does >not change the fact that Americans hate being told how to run their lives, >and we have enough of a battle metricating the USA as it is. Well... Perhaps, but how about putting this to a "vote" before them? Ask them this, what would you like to see, if you were given a choice: 946 mL or 1 L? (You'd evidently have to explain all the other factors to them before they would answer this question, like this is metric-ONLY label, etc, etc) > Adding this >totally-unnecessary and unrelated-to-SI issue just makes the battle harder. > Based on the history of success of nice, round metric packages in the US, like 2-L bottles, I think you should be more supportive of this initiative. Please, just think hypothetically, Jim. What if the day after tomorrow American consumers all of a sudden start seeing 946 mL, 341 mL, 85 g, 591 mL and all the likes? Now compare with if they saw 1 L, 300 mL, 100 g, 600 mL instead. Which situation do you honestly think would trigger the most complaining??? >If nothing else, Marcus, don't bring this up in the USA until we have >achieved a reasonable level of metrication. Please!!!! > But I'm only trying to help, Jim (really!)... :-S :-) I still think that if metrication were followed over there, labelwise, by a switch to nice, round values, it would stand a better chance of being accepted than if they were flooded by a hord of stupid difficult-to-relate values like I described above? So, in other words, I honestly believe metrication would stand a much better chance of being accepted if rationality were built into the packaging system ALSO. There would be much less reason to complain when you go from 1 lb, 20 oz, 1 qt to 500 g, 600 mL and 1 L, respectively. Reasonable, fair? ... >>The same applies to tools. Tools CAN accommodate a myriad of sizes when >>used. If not, then it's really time to change them to *smarter*, more >>flexible ones (an expense they'd be supposed to incur anyways!...). > >With all due respect, Marcus, you continue in what the great Austrian >economist Ludwig von Mises terms "arrogance of knowledge." > ? He, he... That's a new one... >There is NO WAY you understand all the implications of mandating rational >package sizes. I actually do, Jim, because (remember!!) I've *worked* and was *directly involved* with the business of packaging before. > In just the USA, there are hundreds of millions of products >in production, there are about 15 million businesses, there are untold >trillions of dollars of machinery and equipment, there is stuff you have >never even heard of!! > True, of course. But I'm quite familiar with changes that CAN be implemented that could still work *despite* not-so-cooperative environments (like machinery, equipment, etc). Evidently, I'm not saying it's "that simple", but that industry's environments nowadays are *already* quite prepared to tackle situations of change in packaging, especially those that deal with *filling* them with products. >You, nor any other human being, can POSSIBLY know all the implications of >mandating something like "rational" package sizes. Yet you are more than >willing to force these rules onto people, with nary a care about what it >may do to some businesses. > Not exactly, Jim. Please read what I wrote above. There are inventive ways of dealing with *labeling*, Jim. Please do not lose sight of our topic of discussion here! L-a-b-e-l-i-n-g. I can give you one simple example with So Good itself. They're presently using cartons labeled 946 mL for most of their product line. However, it's the exact same carton that they use for its soya milk (I actually measured them ALL!!!), a product that still comes labeled as 1 L, instead! This is just ONE example of what I mean, Jim. Please don't make this as if I'm wreaking havoc on them or something. Far from me, my friend. >Just one example of where "rational" packaging is foolish: I recently had >Lasik surgery (btw -- HIGHLY recommended!). For four weeks after, I had to >use a special "preservative free eye drops" several times a day. I don't >know about you, but I had never even HEARD of such a thing before this surgery! > >Yet, they are one of the 50,000 items available in most grocery stores >(actually, several brands of them). Since they are preservative free, they >come in little plastic ampules. There is a few drops of liquid in each one >-- you twist off a plastic cap, put in the drops, then discard it. > >So, what is the "rational" amount of solution that each ampule should hold, >Marcus? 1 mL? 2 mL? Well, the *truly* rational amount is about 2 drops per >eye, or four drops total. The volume of a drop depends, of course, on the >viscosity of the fluid. > But Jim, products like these do not even come with labeling for quantity!!! This is evidently clearly a different situation. >Should the manufacturer change the viscosity to maximize the "rational" >package utilization, even if that makes them less ideal as an eye drop? Or >perhaps include extra of this sterile fluid, knowing it will be thrown >away, just so the label on the box is a nice, round number? > Good trap, Jim, but I won't "bite" it... There are situations in which label itself is totally moot (this may indeed be just a good example of one!). And if "quantity" must appear, well, there are ways of getting around it, like, using things like "dosage", "pill", "vial", whatever, wouldn't there?... ;-) >As a matter of fact, I don't even know if the volume is labeled on the box, >since the only thing that the consumer cares about is the number of ampules. > P-r-e-c-i-s-e-l-y! As I said above, they're most likely NOT labeled due to the nature of what they are! >>Acceptable values according to German laws: >> >>1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, >>600, 700, 750, 800, 900, 1 kg! >> >>I dare you to prove to us that you would absolutely unquestionably require >>ANY package size for mass to deviate from any of the above values!!! > >Why do you limit it to mass? And see the above example. > I cited mass as just one possible example, Jim, *example*. As for your 'above example' I guess I covered that the discussion replies above, too. >>Again, we're in the 3rd millennium, Jim. Technology has evolved to such >>an extent that making such changes are no longer the big deal they used to >>be!!! And THAT is an undeniable fact! > >It can't be undeniable -- I am denying it. As I said above, you cannot >possibly know that your claims are true for all of the hundreds of millions >of products and tens of millions of businesses in the world. > ? If you're saying that there are some industries that do not use sophisticated means for their production lines, granted! However, the fact remains, Jim. There IS technology available to do these things very painlessly, that's what I meant. THAT is the fact that I was trying to point out. >>This is not a matter of 'forcing our fetishes onto the rest of you', but >>to create a base/infrastructure for rational trading, Jim. Enough of >>excuses, if one does not want to be part of the solution, at least do not >>be part of the problem! > >There is NO need for your "rational" package sizes to promote "rational" >trading, Marcus! How has the USA become the biggest importer/exporter in >the world, and the biggest economy in the world, if "rational" packaging is >so important? > ? Sorry, Jim, but I fail to see the relationship of your question to our discussion here. So, I'm not sure I follow you, Jim. The main rationale, I'd say, for advocating rational sizing **in a matter dealing with a transition situation like metrication**, is that it would greatly enhance the effort. Or make it much more acceptable to the public. If processes canNOT be modified to accommodate this, fine; provide a "way out" or work with those that would have such difficulties to find viable solutions to bring them on board in the future. I have no problem with that. Governments should be sensitive to the needs of the industry they serve and regulate. But the word here is to prevent **inertia** to stifle progress or unduly penalize the public or avoid sabbotage of the process itself when changes can be perfectly reasonable and feasible to implement. Fair? >Answer -- "rational" packaging is a non-issue in the trade world. Well, >that's not entirely true: the cargo container is a very important >"rational" package. Too bad it was not designed in nice, round meter lengths. > As long as there are examples out there that *prove* that packages CAN and DO conform to rational metric sizes/values, there can be no reasonable explanation to shun them **in the long run**! Again, the spirit here is to find metrication policies that would be helpful, NOT to add to the burden of the process itself. On the other hand one MUST be mindful of the challenges that "soft metrication" can cause in the market place. And the bottom line is this, in EVERY sector that I know of that adopted a permanent policy for "soft metrication" (when they ought not to) metrication was a fluke! ... >>Europeans shouldn't care less if domestic US consumers would be bothered >>by buying 100 mL toothpaste tubes as opposed to 3 oz ones!!! Or 500 g >>boxes of cereal, instead of 1 lb ones, or 600 mL of salsa, instead of 20 >>fl.oz., etc. Besides, I can bet my neck that most *in the US* won't care >>less provided the *values* look rational. What you defend, Jim, is >>unfortunately indefensible from *your own perspective*! Why? Oh, well, >>you would really piss them off if they start seeing 227 g, 454 g, 341 mL >>and the likes ONLY! > >Sorry, but 3 oz is every bit as "rational" as 100 mL. 1 lb is as "rational" >as 500 g (using "rational" to mean "round"). > But we're talking about **metric** labeling, Jim, 'rationality' from *that* perspective! ... >> >You can dream about the day that the world comes in rational metric >> >packages. But, until we manage to metricate the USA, please keep your >> >dreams to yourselves, or you will just make our job that much harder. >> >... >>??? Oh... and you would consider just adopting metric-only labels of the >>sort I described above to be a step forward? Honestly? Nah, I don't >>think so, my dear friend! > >Well, should we argue over whether "adopt" means "force"? You know my >position Marcus: we absolutely need to *allow* the use of metric-only >labels (and nice, round package sizes, for that matter). Wonderful! Then that settles it! Why are we arguing again?... ;-) > Should the >government force manufacturers to use them? No doubt you would say "yes," >and I would say "no." > ? IF metrication is to be followed using "metric only" labeling as a positive step towards that, then my point is that it would greatly help the process if *simultaneously* industries agreed to *rationalize* their processes in order to reap the *full benefits* of the SI decimal system. It goes like this, Jim. If a decimal system is superior why not produce things that are compatible with the very thing that makes it superior? For example, someone here told us that it wouldn't be enough to use metric in construction without necessarily using metric materials. I replied at the time that it wasn't entirely true arguing that it would reap some benefits, operationally, but that it would not be "full speed" ahead without the equivalent change to the materials themselves, too. In the end, the main point to consider is: operation + material should go hand-in-hand. Changing one without changing the other can be treacherous. Ask that to any DOT folks who are wrestling with this dilemma. People are "happy" with the status quo because operation + material are BOTH in ifp, so it's all in "familiar" territory. I hope you get my message, 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'!!! ;-) > >I am not following the first part of this paragraph. > Darn, of course not. My mistake, Jim (sorry...). What I meant was, pure metric-only labels with things like 341, 454 and the likes would (or could) be irritating factors to the public. >I agree that having a nice round 2 helped the 2 L bottle become accepted. >However, labeling it "2 qt" would have the same advantage, so clearly there >is more to that story. >... Again, I centered the discussion around the adoption of metric *ONLY* labels. From that perspective it would just make more sense for industries to push for the usage of 1 L, and not continuing to deal with 1 qt amounts anymore. Again, 'operation + material' principle... Take care, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
