> I agree with Marcus. I also understand a business' right to change package > sizes to what ever is economical for them. But, why are the hidden FFU > sizes the supposed economical ones? If one is going to downsize, then why > chose 1.89 L over say 1.9 L? Why is 454 g preferred over 450 g, etc.? How > exactly are these irrational metric sizes more economical then rational or > semi-rational metric ones? > > Since Marcus lives in Canada, and Canada is a supposed metric country, then > companies should be sensitive to that market and choose sizes that are > rational or semi-rational metric. They don't have to be perfect round > numbers like 500 g or 1 L, but what is being proved here when 454 g or 946 > mL is picked?
Because then they would have to have separate manufacturing procedures for Canada. It's much easier for the manufacturers to make a few more of the same items they make for the US, and then apply a label that complies with Canadian standards, then it is to have to retool their machines to be able to package rounded or rational metric amounts. For example, orange juice sold in Canada is normally from the US, where it is also packaged. The packages are half-gallon cartons. In order to make 2 L carton, for the Canadian market, their packaging machines would have to be retooled to fit the larger sized carton. They simply use the half-gallon carton, with a label that that complies with Canada's bilingual and ingredient labelling requirements. It's labelled as 1.89 L, > If that is the way the US wants to market products, fine, but > stop it at the border. When you sell in a metric country you size your > product to either rational or semi-rational metric sizes. That is the way > it should be. The Canadian market is one tenth the size of the US market. It's just not economical for them to have one manufacturing system for the US and a separate one for Canada. Stephen Gallagher
