Depends where you shop
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:50:41 -0800
From: [email protected]
Subject: [USMA:43277] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute
objections to metric-only labeling option
To: [email protected]
Sweet......
I wonder if it is the same in the UK.
Jerry
*From:* Pat Naughtin <[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:15:06 PM
*Subject:* [USMA:43254] Re: discussion of Food Marketing
Institute objections to metric-only labeling option
Dear Stan, Jerry, Remek, Pierre and All,
This is the way we do it in Australia. As you can see the price
per 100 grams makes comparisons quite easy.. It doesn't matter
whether the initial size is rounded or not.
[]
This is taken from an advertising catalog placed in our letter
box yeasterday.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to
the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically
that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing,
or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and
resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for
commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in
Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the
Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric
associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See
http://www.metricationmatters.com/ or to get the free
'/Metrication matters/' newsletter go to:
http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
On 2009/02/25, at 12:23 AM, STANLEY DOORE wrote:
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
<mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ; U.S. Metric Association
<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
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]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]
<mailto:[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 <mailto:[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]
<mailto:[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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live Hotmail just got better. Find out more!
<http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/windowslive/products/hotmail.aspx>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date:
02/27/09 13:27:00
