(html posting converted back to plain text) The EU is moving away from package size regulation and relying instead on unit pricing regulation. Germany has just eliminated a whole category (all liquid sizes I think) of size regulations.
An EU report says: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The working paper examines whether there is an "overriding need" of a public nature for legislating mandatory ranges of sizes Union-wide. The effect of fixing a mandatory range of sizes for a product is to allow a few quantities and to exclude all others. Justifications put forward in the past have included barriers to trade and misleading of consumers. There is some doubt whether they are convincing in the current context of unit price labelling requirements (price per kg/litre of Directive 98/6/EC) and of case law on Article 28 of the Treaty. Furthermore, fixing ranges may facilitate tacit collusion, which the Commission considers detrimental to competition. Developments in packaging indicate that mandatory sizes may impede innovation and hamper competitiveness. In sectors where ranges have been fixed, the trend of supplying smaller quantities, reflecting smaller households and more individual life styles, seems to have been followed reluctantly or not at all. Fixed ranges may, however, solve the market failure caused by the buying power of large retailers. At the same time, however, it may create a new market failure, when producers are empowered to effectively limit consumer choice to only one size. It may over-protect the consumer who is "reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect". On the basis of the considerations outlined in this report, it may be concluded that: * there is no public need for regulation of mandatory sizes, in general, * Member States should follow suit and similarly deregulate across the board, * any exceptions requiring legislation need to be minimal and duly justified. One exception might be inflexible packaging material in a sector where market concentration is low, for example for glass bottles of wine. The mandatory size would be limited to glass bottles in the one most commonly sold size, surrounded by an exclusion zone within which no other sizes are allowed. All other sizes would be free, as would be all sizes of non-glass containers. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is the executive summary. Please read the excellent full analysis at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/prepack/object_internetconsult/en_objin ternetcons.htm -- Terry Simpson Human Factors Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.connected-systems.com Phone: +44 7850 511794 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Elwell Sent: 03 July 2003 15:10 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:26230] Re: Kraft plans to cut snack sizes At 02 07 03, 07:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regulations requiring rational packaging would go a long way toward ending the practice of manufacturers disguising price increases by instead downsizing the product.� They would have to be upfront and honest about it. ... There will be the argument of course that the goverment is "telling us what to do".� I don't consider this particularly onerous because it is a benefit to the consumer. The presumption that rational package sizes are "a benefit to the consumer" is highly suspect. On the one hand, I agree the SOME consumers may benefit when it is easier to compare prices -- those who bother to do so. Brand managers can tell you what a small portion of the population that is. On the other hand, you are presuming that whoever writes the regulations understands the best and most appropriate sizes for several million consumer products, and that those sizes just happen to end up being rational. Highly doubtful. Rational package sizes would guarantee both increase consumer waste (having to buy too much of something because the required "rational" size is either too small or too large), waste consumer's money (again, paying for something you don't need), and increase the cost of products by increasing the government regulatory and tax burden on companies (someone has to pay for writing, promulgating and enforcing those regulations). I believe we already have the appropriate amount of regulatory control over consumer packaging, in the requirement that they be ACCURATELY labeled for net contents. For those who want rational package sizes, I suggest you have a long ways to go to demonstrate any net benefit to them. Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
