This is a forum where people go to discuss the topic of the metric system. If you don't like the idea that your mail box gets full then either unsubscribe or campaign for the USMA to switch to a different type of forum where you can pick and choose what you want to read.
Jerry ________________________________ From: Mike Palumbo <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:37:59 AM Subject: [USMA:43292] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option Don't feed the troll, please. :) [email protected] wrote: > Yes....a couple of times. As well as France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, > Finland, Russia......and India... Other places in Europe too as I've been > across the continent 3 or 4 times driving and riding trains. > > It may be cheaper to stay at home and ask questions, but it's no substitute. > :) Give it a try! :) > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [USMA:43290] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute > objections to metric-only labeling option > From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, February 27, 2009 7:46 pm > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Because it is even cheaper to stay home and ask questions. Have > you been there already? If so, why not tell us your experience? > Jerry > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Brian J White <[email protected]> > *To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, February 27, 2009 8:12:41 PM > *Subject:* [USMA:43284] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute > objections to metric-only labeling option > > Jerry. Why don't you just buy a cheap plane ticket to London and > check all this stuff out? You seem to be really curious about the > UK. > At 17:07 2009-02-27, Stephen Humphreys wrote: > >> 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 >
