Only problem is that people pay more attention to the price of the box than to the unit price on the store tag.
If the bottle of juice was $3.50, and the bottle was shrunk a bit (perhaps by quantity inside, rather than by size of bottle itself), and remained $3.50, but now had less product, the average consumer would likely not notice that the unit price increased - only that the bottle appears to be the same size at the same price. And that is exactly what the marketeers hope will happen. On the other hand, if the bottle had to be a constant 1.0 l (for example), then the price increase would be immediately noticeable. And that's what the FMI definitely does not want. Carleton -------------- Original message -------------- From: "STANLEY DOORE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Unit pricing based on the same units eliminates the "hide" factor regardless > of units used so long as unit pricing is the same for all products. > > People must learn to read and use unit pricing rather than go by package > size. Cereal packages are a great example of over sized packages for small > quantities of cereal. Think of the shelf space and transportation space > which could be saved and efficiency gained. > > Stan Doore > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carleton MacDonald" > To: "U.S. Metric Association" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:07 PM > Subject: [USMA:38901] RE: FW: RE: Voluntary metric-only amendment to FPLA > and opposition lobbying > > > > My guess is that the Food Marketing Institute is opposed because they fear > > that the next step will be the mandating of rational metric sizes, and > > there > > goes their marketeering game of hiding price increases by shrinking the > > amount of product in the package. > > > > Carleton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 19:21 > > To: U.S. Metric Association > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [USMA:38900] FW: RE: Voluntary metric-only amendment to FPLA and > > opposition lobbying > > > > Forwarding this to the USMA list. I second Ken's advice about contacting > > businesses to request metric-only labelling. > > > > Ezra > > > > -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- > > From: "Ken Butcher" > > To: > > Cc: "'Elizabeth Gentry'" > > Subject: RE: Voluntary metric-only amendment to FPLA and opposition > > lobbying > > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:06:25 +0000 > > > >> No, there hasn't been any effort to conduct studies because it is not > > really > >> an issue of widespread public concern. The public currently accepts > > metric > >> only in a wide range of products and applications. > > > >>The opposition to the FPLA amendment is essentially a carryover from the > > anti-metric sentiments of > >> the 1970s and many of the arguments against it simply are specious. Only > >> the Food Marketing Institute has gone on record as opposing the amendment > >> while most other trade associations support it. > > > >> Another factor is that since 1999 some 48 states have amended their > > requirements to permit > >> metric-only labeling and none of those states have reported consumer > >> complaints about industry having the option to label in metric units. > >> Hopefully, once the EU announces its decision on its 2010 deadline, we > > will > >> be able to show that amending the FPLA will eliminate an ineffective and > >> unnecessary barrier to metric-only labeling. > >> > >> What would help us would be for those interested in metric-only labeling > > to > >> ask for it in retail stores and contact the mfgs of the products they buy > >> and request that products be labeled metric-only. > >> > >> ___________________________________________ > >> > >> Kenneth S. Butcher > >> Group Leader > >> National Institute of Standards and Technology > >> Weights and Measures Division > >> Laws and Metric Group > >> Stop 2600 > >> Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-2600 > >> > >> 301-975-4859 Fax: 301-975-8091 > >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> http://www.nist.gov/owm > >> http://www.nist.gov/metric > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:49 PM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Voluntary metric-only amendment to FPLA and opposition lobbying > >> > >> Dear Ken, > >> > >> I was happy to read on the USMA mailing list that the voluntary > > metric-only > >> labelling amendment to the FPLA has been sent again to Commerce for > > possible > >> inclusion in the White House's legislative proposals for the next session > > of > >> Congress. > >> > >> Given the (in my view mostly specious or misguided) opposition to this > >> amendment that some groups (FMI, for example) have offered in the past, I > >> was wondering if anyone in the government is aware of any studies that > > have > >> been done (either by the GAO, other agencies in the government, or > >> independent organizations) that have analyzed in a substantive and > >> methodologically sound way the objections that have been raised by any > >> industry groups or other organizations to this amendment. > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Ezra Steinberg > >> Technical Writer > >> Kirkland WA > >> > >> > > > > >
