You have a point there. But English unit pricing can still be protective if there was a standard unit for all pricing, such as ounces.
Are you sure that 52.2 c/100 g is proper SI? Aren't all of the unit symbols suppose to be together and only a base unit be in the denominator? Thus wouldn't it be more correct to write 5.22 $/kg? Jerry ________________________________ From: Michael Payne <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:04:43 PM Subject: [USMA:43226] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option English unit pricing does not protect the consumer, many times I've seen items unit priced like 14.8c/oz for loose mushrooms and 1.89/lb on packaged mushrooms, it's not easy to compare which is cheaper, but these things are all over the grocery store. If the same thing were in grams and kg it would like be 52.2 c/100g loose or $4.17/kg. Just by moving the decimal you can see the per kg price is cheaper. Mike Payne ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremiah MacGregor To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Sunday, 22 February 2009 14:30 Subject: [USMA:43189] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option Are you saying that unit pricing in English units would not protect the consumer? Why does it have to be in metric units? What difference does it make what units it is in as long as it is in one unit? When you say metric only packaging are you referring to a move to rounded metric sizes or are you referring to the change in the FPLA which would allow metric only sizes even if they are not round? Jerry ________________________________ From: STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 4:45:13 PM Subject: [USMA:43170] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option Consumers want to know value and that can't be done by looking at packages since manufacturers use deceptive packaging to disguise small quantities in large packages. Unit pricing in metric units only is the only way to protect consumers. This absolutely necessary. Metric only packaging will be a major step forward; however, it will not help consumers making value purchases. Stan Doore ----- Original Message ----- From: Remek Kocz To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:11 AM Subject: [USMA:43133] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option You may not have trouble shooting them down, but this is a situation where logic and reason don't matter. You're up against people outwardly hostile to metric, and they've got a lot of power. This probably requires a different approach rather than just debunking their straw-dummy arguments amongst ourselves.. Perhaps writing each and every one of their members, many of whom are international firms, may be of use. Remek On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> wrote: The FMI's excuses are so lame it really shouldn't take a big effort to shoot them down. The USMA and NIST could easily counter their arguments.. So why aren't they? Jerry ________________________________ From: Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:33:39 AM Subject: [USMA:43083] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option FMI wrote: >The majority of consumers do not understand metric measurements. Consumers have had enough exposure to liter and half-liter bottles of water and olive oil, 750 ml bottles of wine and oil, and 2 l bottles of pop to understand what a liter is. Measuring cups have been graduated in milliliters for decades. Measuring devices in grams are not as common, but nutritional labels indicate fat, protein, and carbs in grams, and the kilogram is easily related to the liter of water. (The 28 mg discrepancy is within bottling tolerance.) >Value comparison between similar products of different sizes Products labeled in pounds are already also labeled in grams. The consumer can divide cents by grams in his head for both products (if he can divide in his head; if not, units don't matter). Once I had a very hard decision between a 250 g package of fresh strawberries and a 283 g package of frozen strawberries. The unit prices were very close, and I walked back and forth several times before deciding on the frozen. I've seen comparisons I cannot make with the current system of labeling. One is a 400 g pack of açaí (4 pieces, 100 g each) versus a 473 ml tub of açaí sorbet. I know neither the density nor the fraction of açaí in the sorbet. Another is a dry pint of tomatoes versus a pound of tomatoes. The dry pint is labeled 551 ml, but when I weigh it it is nowhere near 551 g, more like 300 or 330 g, and there are too few tomatoes for the density to be well-defined. I think that the dry pint and all its relatives should be abolished. >result in package change sizes. The proposed law doesn't require changing package sizes. It doesn't even require changing labels. What will probably happen is that anything that's round in grams will be labeled only in grams, and anything that's round in pounds will be labeled in both. >and that will require changes in unit pricing labels. Even a small store can take in $1000 in a day. $1000 spread over 50 weeks is a trifle. >as well as nutrition information and recipe programs. Nutrition information is already in grams; packaging in round numbers of grams will make it easy to understand. Some packages currently have serving sizes and numbers of servings that don't match the package size. As to recipes, Latinos at least write recipes in metric, and would find it easier if they could buy tomatoes in grams. Pierre
