Dear All, The issue of 500 gram metric pounds is a little more complex than simply changing the definition of the word pound.
Since the proposed metric pound is a little over 10�% more than the old imperial pound, then it is appropriate to revise the use of the word pound in every place that it occurs and to fully consider the implications of the change. For example, say you have an old recipe that calls for a pound of flour, would a pint (568�millilitres) of milk be adequate for your recipe or would you need 600�mL (+ 6�%) or 625 mL (+ 10�%); would a 20�mL tablespoon be better than a 15�mL tablespoon? And you need to consider this question for each and every one of the ingredients in all of millions upon millions of possible kitchen recipes! If you don't consider these issues you are subjecting several generations of cooks to measurement madness in their kitchens. In addition, all industrial recipes need the same thought and consideration with many millions more possible applications. We were fortunate in Australia to have had a wise group of professional cooks, who made the rounding decisions for us that made all of our recipes -- both old and new -- compatible enough to be practical in any working kitchen. I think of it as a masterpiece of metrication in an extremely complex situation. As I said, this is a little more complex than simply changing the definition of the word pound. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia -- on 22/3/04 2:39 AM, Chimpsarecute at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Many. France and Germany for one made their versions of the pound equal to > 500 g at the moment of metrication. The Chinese jin is also 500g. > > The changes may have been done legally, but over time the laws allowing the > legal use of these units have been changed to require only metric units and > devices as legal for trade. Thus if someone asks for a pound and is given > something else, they may or may not have recourse in a court of law. > > There is a big difference between a unit being illegal and a unit being > non-legal. In the first case, the use of the unit is forbidden in the second > case the unit isn't forbidden per se but it is not protected by law and thus > the user(s) use this unit at their own risk. In this case the transaction is > always carried out in the legal unit. The only thing a court would go by is > what is printed on the receipt and not what was spoken. > > One thing of interest would be the status of the pound in Canada. Is the > pound in Canada legal for trade? If not, despite the moratorium, a shop clerk > does not have to follow the 454 g definition. A clerk may vend 500 g or > whatever if he/she chooses. Fraud and cheating would only take place if the > customer paid more then what was advertised. > > For example: If ham was advertised as 0.99 $/100 g and a person asking for a > pound was given exactly 500 g and charged 4.95 $ for the ham, then no fraud > took place. Providing the pound is, under the law, a non-legal unit in trade. > If the customer was given 450 g and charged for 500 g, then fraud did take > place. In many places now a days it is hard to commit fraud as machines have > pre-programmed pricing and a computerised scale weighs and calculates the cost > and prints a label. > > Euric >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: john mercer <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Sent: Sunday, 2004-03-21 02:08 >> >> Subject: [USMA:29257] 500 g pound >> >> >> >> Are there actually some countrys where the pound is legally defined as 500 >> g? Does anybody know of any? >
