2002-11-10 I don't really have a problem with 370 g. I would consider it semi-rational. It is a number that ends in a zero, even though, it would be better if it was 350 g or 400 g. What I would oppose are sizes that are obviously hidden FFU. If it were labeled as 368 g, I would suspect it to be a hidden FFU for 13 oz. Now maybe, this company does sell this product in the US and it is sold as 13 oz. Who knows?
But, out of curiosity Louis, would a 400 g package be just right too? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-11-09 23:20 Subject: [USMA:23207] Re: Pack sizes in the EU > On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:27:52 > Louis JOURDAN wrote: > ... > >>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...) > > > >Why, indeed! At my breakfast this morning I had delicious orange > >marmalade produced by "Bonne Maman" (is it possible to be a more > >typical French company?) from a 370 g jar. This size is perfectly > >convenient: with our family's consumption, a jar lasts about a > >fortnight, i.e. matches its conservation time once opened. A 500 g > >size would last too long, and I would have to renew too often a 250 g > >one.
