Why on Earth would Ken Butcher accept FMI's points as gospel, Jerry?
I would like to point out that our governmental situation is a bit
complex -- perhaps more than you realize. Most of what is done on the
floor of the House and Senate is for show. The bulk of the work gets
done "in the back halls", in offices, and in committee meetings. Most
representatives and senators are not amenable to pure, dispassionate
reasoning. Elected officials run expensive campaigns and bloc politics
overrides individual inputs, except those from the wealthiest contributors.
USMA represents us in those back halls and offices, but USMA is small
compared to the many blocs that can "swing" thousands or tens of
thousands of constituent members. Also, USMA is not a registered lobby.
Last year Lorelle Young, Ken Butcher, Elizabeth Gentry, two other NIST
folks, and I had a meeting where some issues were discussed. The largest
thing at that particular meeting was to discuss the proposed standard
for the dispensing of H2 at "filling stations", but we discussed other
matters, too.
If you get a chance, you might care to take a political science course
on policy making. I have and realize that I merely scratched the surface
of that topic. It is not only complex, but at times it can be rather
bizarre. I also suggest that you read the NIST MP reports on the FPLA
conferences. That will give you a bit of a feel for the variety of
"players" in the ball game.
Jim
Jeremiah MacGregor wrote:
Since the FMI wrote their letter to Ken Butcher, what has Ken done to
refute their claims or did Ken just accept them as gospel?
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Phil Chernack <[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
*Cc:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:17:00 PM
*Subject:* [USMA:43085] Re: consumer education on the metric system
Well, I pose this one:
Does the avarage consumer know and understand the differences and
relationships between ounces, pints, quarts and gallons? Many times I
see unit pricing in quarts but the items being sold have no mention of
quarts on them. They are either fl oz, mL or L. It seems to me to be
very disingenuous on the part of the food marketing industry to "claim"
most consumers don't understand metric or rather, understand customary
units better all the while they are changing package sizes to
non-standard sizes and putting only fl oz rather than expressing rounded
up units such as quarts or gallons. Meantime, the unit pricing does not
reflect these. You know as well as I that most consumers don't even pay
attention to the units on the package to begin with. They buy by
size--that is small, medium, large. How many people have been
hoodwinked into thinking they are buying a half-gallon carton of
something when it really contains less. The package size is a little
smaller but it "looks" like a half-gallon.
As for the space argument that rationally sized metric products won't
fit into the current racks, refridgerators or shelves is a specious one
at best. I have seen plenty of rationally-sized metric products in the
supermarkets from soda and juice to cleaners and they fit fine.
One other note, the FMI refers to the "metric experiment" I have news
for them: it's no experiment. As many here can point out, many
industries have converted to metric or work in metric with no issues and
have made the deliberate decision to do so. What we have is a long,
slow, painful inevability that could be made quicker and less painful.
Phil
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Paul Trusten <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
FMI claims that the American public does not understand the metric
system and is not demanding metric products. I think there is some
truth to this claim. Although the U.S. public has taken to metric
soft drinks (and hard drinks, too) , it remains to be seen if the
average U.S. shopper understands, /upon inspection, /how, for
example, a 1 L bottle relates to a 500 mL bottle or a 750 mL
bottle. Now, you and I on this list laugh at such a statement,
because we have made this understanding of metric units as
instinctive as cents relate to dollars. But FMI is talking about
the average consumer who, under the FPLA amendment, suddenly will be
faced with labeling, shelf tags, and advertising in metric units
only, and will have to make a purchase based upon metric-only
labeling. Its point that numerous questions will be handed to store
personnel is a valid one (I speak here from personal experience as a
retail pharmacist over the years, when any consumer-product issue
comes up from behind and taps the public on the shoulder) .
We must face the fact that Americans are generally not taught or
oriented to using, and /comparing,/ metric units. Buying a 2 L
bottle of Coke is one thing, but really processing that measurement
information is another. Does the average shopper know that 2 L =
2000 mL, and can (s)he yet quickly and easily relate a 2 L bottle to
a 250 mL bottle? I don't think so. I say we need to work to change
that. We who extol the advantages of metric need to educate our
fellow Americans on features, and the virtues the metric system.
This just isn't common knowledge yet in America.
Developing a plan for consumer metric education is going to be a top
priority for me at USMA in the coming months..
We can accomplish two things with mass consumer education: to
reduce any possible public confusion over metric units, and also to
sell the decimal advantage of metric.
Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
www.metric.org <http://www.metric.org/>
3609 Caldera Blvd. Apt. 122
Midland TX 79707-2872 US
+1(432)528-7724
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030
(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108
