At 11:56 2002-11-10 -0500, kilopascal wrote:
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.
