It is even funnier seeing you avoid providing
proof for your claim. If you can't provide
proof they why not admit that Ken is right and
you are wrong instead of diverting and
distracting from the truth with all kinds of
nonsense and attacks on other posters? I wonder
how long it will be before those who have been
deceived into thinking you are polite finally
awake to the reality of who and what you really are.
Jerry
From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2009 6:50:46 PM
Subject: [USMA:43370] Re: discussion of Food
Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option
LOL!
It's quite funny seeing the exact
"Daniel/Euric/Kilopascal" vocabulary slipping out!
----------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:35:37 -0800
From: [email protected]
Subject: [USMA:43366] Re: discussion of Food
Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option
To: [email protected]
I don't see where Ken's claim is invalid as he
states what the law says. If you are able to
provide proof to the contrary in the same manner
that Ken has, then why not provide it in stead
of going off in a mad rage? Then all of us can
judge the validity of either claim. Instead of
providing proof you choose instead to go off on
a wild frenzy and attack Ken for providing valid proof.
You claim people here have been polite to you,
then why not return the favor and be polite in
return? Being polite is easy as long as no one
challenges your claims but the moment a
challenge arises you respond in the most impolite way.
From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 4:54:59 PM
Subject: [USMA:43334] Re: discussion of Food
Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option
I will leave it to other contributors to decide
the validity of Lee's claims. I have personally
enjoyed contributing to this forum and have
enjoyed the many conversations with most of the
contributors here that have often continued
chatting with me 'off the list'. People here
have been polite and friendly with me - mainly
because they don't hold extreme views on how
people measure things. I can say - without
exception - that I have experienced nothing but
courtesy from the people here despite holding a
different (but not *that* different) view.
In the meantime I will not need to address you
by a false name or whatever as I won't be
furthering your vendetta with John
(Jeremiah/Daniel/kilopascal/etc) against
me. This is my last answer to you here. This
is not the forum for that style or extreme viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you do not do the usual
thing of making a response to just my posts each
and every time I do a post using pedantry,
personalisation and half-truths because I'm sure
that the people here will find it just as tedious as others have elsewhere.
And I ask again - to both of you - take the
insults off the list and send them to me personally via my email address.
My wife, although irritated, does not care that
you are using her maiden name 'coincidence' - ie it hasn't worked.
I will still contribute and respond to other
people's contributions - however I shall not be
justifying a counter response each time Lee
decides to announce how 'wrong' I am.
I'm sincerely and genuinely sorry that I've
attracted these two over here folks - please forgive me in advance.
Steve
----------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:35:55 -0800
From: [email protected]
Subject: [USMA:43332] Re: discussion of Food
Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option
To: [email protected]
As usual, Stephen misses the point.
The question asked related to unit pricing of
pre-packed food, not to supplementary imperial
markings at a deli or cheese counter. Imperial
Unit Pricing does not appear on UK supermarket shelves.
Even if the original question had related to
price marking for goods loose from bulk (which
is a totally different concept from unit pricing), Stephen still has it wrong.
It is a requirement of the Price Marking Order
2004 that goods loose from bulk (i.e. fruit &
veg, meat, fish etc) that are weighed in the
presence of the customer must be marked with a
price per kilogramme (or in some cases a price per 100 grammes)
There is no requirement whatsoever to mark a price per lb, qtr or oz.
A few shops choose to mark a supplementary
imperial indication of price, but this is
totally voluntary. There is no requirement to mark this information.
Some major supermarkets (including the
Co-operative Group) do not mark imperial prices
at all on their "loose from bulk" goods.
Finally, Stephen, I'm only going to say this once.
I am free to use any name I wish, as long as it
is not for the purposes of fraud. I believe your
wife is known as Mrs K**** Humphreys, so I am
unaware exactly how "Ken Cooper" can be mistaken for her.
Are you suggesting that her name is a shortened version of Kenneth?
So, as a matter of politeness, please call me
Ken, Kenny or Kenneth. Or you can call me Mr Cooper.
I have had to resort to using an alias because
you have previously linked to my true name, my
office address & my secretary's telephone number
on other Weights & Measures sites. I hope you do
not intend to resort to such tactics again.
And, as usual, it looks as if you are attempting
to personalise the debate. Why not just keep it
to Weights & Measures and lay off the personal stuff?
--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:43330] Re: discussion of Food
Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 8:39 PM
Reading this suggests that there are never signs
that show a per lb or per qtr figure.
Please be aware of the 'missing gaps'.
I'm going to politely ask again, Lee, please use
a post name that does not mimic my wife's name.
It really does not intimidate me but others find
themselves at a loss to why they need to be used again.
I'm sure that people here would be interested in
your slant on things but please have some taste.
If you decide to keep up the name thing then I
will not be answering or commenting on your
messages - leaving you free to claim whatever you like without check.
----------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:25:13 -0800
From: [email protected]
Subject: [USMA:43329] Re: discussion of Food
Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option
To: [email protected]
UK Unit Pricing requirements are a bit more
complicated than Stephen's simplistic answer
below. They are covered by the Price Marking Order 2004.
There is some quite detailed guidance at
<http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file8175.pdf>http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file8175.pdf
but, in general, Unit Pricing can be summarised as follows
Unit Pricing only applies to sales of goods to
consumers. Sales of services or to other traders
are not covered. Neither is food sold and
consumed in catering establishments (including
canteens etc), antiques and works of art
Shops must comply with Unit Pricing requirements
unless they are exempt. The main exemption is
for shops with a floor area of less than 280 square metres.
The standard units of quantity to be used for
unit pricing purposes are one kilogram, litre,
metre, square metre or cubic metre
Some goods are sold by reference to other units
instead of the standard units above. The exemptions are:-
Product_______________________________________________Units of Quantity
Flavouring essences 10
Food colourings 10
Herbs 10
Make up products 10
Seeds other than pea and bean seeds 10
Spices 10
Biscuits and shortbread 100 (except where sold by number
Bread 100 (except where sold by number
Breakfast cereal products 100 (except where sold by number
Chocolate confectionery and sugar confectionery 100
Coffee 100
Cooked or ready-to-eat fish, seafoods and crustacea 100
Cooked or ready-to-eat meat including game and poultry 100
Cosmetic products other than made up products 100
Cream and non-dairy alternatives to cream 100
Dips and spreads excluding edible fats 100
Dry sauce mixes 100
Fresh processed salad 100
Fruit juices, soft drinks 100
Handrolling and pipe tobacco 100
Ice cream and frozen desserts 100
Lubricating oils other than oils for internal combustion engines 100
Pickles 100
Pies, pasties, sausage rolls puddings and
flans indicating net quantity 100 (except where sold by number)
Potato crisps and similar products commonly known as snack foods 100
Preserves including honey 100
Ready to eat desserts 100
Sauces, edible oils 100
Soups 100
Tea and other beverages prepared with liquid 100
Waters, including spa waters and aerated water 100
Wines, sparkling wine, liqueur wine, fortified wine 75cl
Coal, where sold by the kilogram 50 kg
Ballast, where sold by the kilogram 1000 kg
--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:43283] Re: discussion of Food
Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 1:07 AM
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: <mailto:[email protected]>Jeremiah MacGregor
To:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
; <mailto:[email protected]>U.S. Metric Association
Cc: <mailto:[email protected]>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 <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <<mailto:[email protected]>[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: <mailto:[email protected]>Remek Kocz
To: <mailto:[email protected]>U.S. Metric Association
Cc: <mailto:[email protected]>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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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 <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <<mailto:[email protected]>[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.
<http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/windowslive/products/hotmail.aspx>Find
out more!
----------
Windows Live just got better.
<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/>Find out more!
----------
Windows Live Hotmail just got better.
<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665311/direct/01/>Find out more!
----------
Windows Live just got better.
<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/>Find out more!
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.8/1986
- Release Date: 03/05/09 19:32:00
