Stephen has a fixation with those names for some reason. He can't debate the issues so he diverts your attention away from the subject and distracts you and anyone else with nonsense so you don't realize all of his statements are false and unprovable. His attacks on Ken are directly connected to Ken's providing proof that contradicts Stephen.
Stephen hates the metric system but thinks if he can sweet talk you with pleasantries you will think he is a nice old chap and won't ask him to take his hatred elsewhere. He is playing on your kindness and behind your back he is doing whatever he can to sabotage efforts at metric conversion. You should ask Stephen what he has done to promote the use of the metric system in the UK.. You may also wish to ask Stephen if he supports the BWMA and ARM? Jerry ________________________________ From: Brian J White <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2009 7:39:31 PM Subject: [USMA:43380] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option It's Jeremiah MacGregor day again! :) Wow...blasts from the past.....Euric...kilopascal, etc... At 16:33 2009-03-06, Jeremiah MacGregor wrote: 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 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: 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 ________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail just got better. Find out more! ________________________________ Windows Live just got better. Find out more! ________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail just got better. Find out more! ________________________________ Windows Live just got better. 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
