From: Michael Payne <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:43226] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute
objections to metric-only labeling option
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 8:04 PM
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
