> Of Stephen Gallagher >? Value-comparison between similar products of various >sizes may be difficult to determine for consumers if >some manufacturers use the metric-only option and >others use inch/pound. > >So consumers would be able to value compare >products by comparing the metric units.
Quite. I don't wish to assist their case, but I think what they are saying is that this is not just a matter of individual packs. It affects value comparison. Any value comparison that involves a metric-only pack can only take place in metric units even if the other packs are dual. I am surprised they did not mention shelf labels giving unit prices. The ones that I have noticed were non-metric only. I am sure that they could have raised some issue about it being weird having metric-only packs with non-metric-only shelf labels. I suppose this would have run counter to their claim that value comparison would be difficult. In summary, I think their idea is to say that the issue is not confined to individual packs or individual manufacturers. The scope extends beyond that. I agree that the scope extends into value comparison. I don't agree that it is a reason to oppose the amendment.
