No.
Unit pricing in whatever standard set of units is necessary so long as
unit pricing is uniform to avoid consumer misunderstanding.
If unit pricing remains in English units whereas packages are labeled in
only in metric, consumers may not trust the product or the store even if the
numbers are correct.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: [email protected] ; U.S. Metric Association
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [USMA:43170] 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
