How exactly would having metric only on the label result in a change in package sizes needing different racks, different display labels, different shipping boxes, additional calculations for unit pricing, etc.
What you point out comes about from a physical change in the package size to a rounded metric size, which is not what metric labeling is all about. It is strictly allowing metric declarations to stand alone. There is nothing that says that a 454 g package must change to anything else. Why would there be more work for the manager of a supermarket? There are already a plethora of different package sizes and shapes. Having metric only would not be noticed. Also many markets already have rounded metric products that are imported. They don't seem to present any problems. Toothpaste I believe comes in standard 100 mL and 150 mL tubes and the weight in ounces is the equivalent to the tube size. That is why it is odd. Jerry ________________________________ From: Al Lawrence <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:14:41 PM Subject: [USMA:44284] RE: Opposing FMI Victor has questioned how strongly FMI members are against the metric only labeling option amendment. A good summary of the stated reasons for FMI’s opposition is attached. If you get past the hyperbole, the crocodile tears about confusing the consumer (which food marketers and packagers do intentionally every day to sell more product) and the silly assertion about how the poor, underprivileged people who depend on government handouts for food will be deprived, the basic reason the FMI is against it is that they are concerned the amendment will result in extra work for their members due different package sizes needing different racks, different display labels, different shipping boxes, additional calculations for unit pricing, etc. They have a point. If I owned or ran a supermarket I might not want to bother with it. I might not be strongly opposed to metric labeling or not think it was a big deal, but if asked I would be against it. I am busy enough already, I don’t need anything else to worry about. Why would I do anything that might create more work for me? However, this argument is based on the assumption that the metric only labeling option will result in food manufacturers and packagers coming out with new “round” metric package sizes. Fewer and fewer products are being sold in round Imperial sizes. Toothpaste has been sold almost exclusively in non-round sizes, such as 7.2 fl oz, for many years now. Candy bars are seldom round, but in sizes like 1.78 oz. Many other products have odd sizes for convenience in packing and shipping, as a result of retailers selling slightly smaller packages at the same price as the old round sizes, and to make it difficult to compare prices. If a package is labeled 1 lb 4 oz (570 grams), why would manufacturers come out with a new package size if the amendment passed? Many products are already sold in round metric containers, such as water, mouthwash, vegetable oil and shampoo. For those products that are sold in round Imperial sizes, which, admittedly, are still in the majority, the key question is, would manufacturers come out with new package sizes as a result of the voluntary metric only labeling option? Existing package sizes, labels and display stands are changed every day, for all sorts of reasons. New package sizes and bottle shapes are constantly being introduced by marketing people. “New economy size”, “New EZ grip bottle”, New fun-size”, “Now made in Mini-bites“, ”Special 100 calorie serving size” , “New no-drip spout” and many other new promotional packages are introduced every day. There are many reasons manufacturers come out with new packaging sizes. Would the voluntary option to use metric only labels be one of them? There is only one reason package sizes are changed, and that is to sell more product. Food marketers must deal with different package sizes and labeling changes everyday and, in fact, it is routine. It is possible that the metric only option might result in a few additional package sizes and a few additional label changes, but the effect will be minor, probably not even not noticeable amidst all the normal packing changes. So why does the FMI appear to be so adamant in their position? I believe it is because when the position was originally taken they had a much stronger case. When the list of reasons was written in 2002 (or before - the FMI's position was established much earlier), there was virtually no round metric packaging in the US, other than two liter soda bottles. Also, at that time, the EU was still planning to eliminate all supplemental units on anything sold in Europe. The FMI’s real concern may be that the voluntary metric labeling option was a step in a drive to convert entirely to metric (which it is) and that it would lead to a forced changeover to round metric packaging, which really would create a lot of extra work and expense for FMI members. Indeed, their arguments against the amendment are written as though metric labeling would be mandatory if it passed, and that may be the real reason they are so strongly opposed to it. Things have changed. Round metric packaging is becoming more common, apparently without creating any inconvenience or problems for FMI members, and the EU has recently decided to allow non-metric unit labeling indefinitely. There is no longer any legal incentive to use metric only labeling, so even if the metric only labeling option is passed it seems unlikely that anyone will introduce a new package size just so they can put a metric only label on it. Any new metric sizes would be introduced as part of manufacturers' normal packaging changes. There will still be only one reason to change package sizes, to sell more product, and that, presumably, is one of FMI’s goals as well. Are the FMI and their members still strongly opposed to the amendment, or is their opposition based mainly on carryover from the past, when it was a more legitimate concern? Assuming the FMI monitors this website, I would like to hear their response. ________________________________ From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:44283] Opposing FMI Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:04:42 -0500 With some modest funding to hire the right talent, we could probably assemble an array of organizations and interest groups that could effectively pressure FMI to drop opposition to metric-only, or to counter their weight in congress (perhaps immigrant groups, food importers, educators, scientific and medical organizations, etc.). A bunch of the members of FMI are not even American companies, and wouldn't take much to sway, if they're even aware of FMI's stance on this issue today. And metric conversion is probably number 12,712 on FMI's list of legislative priorities. There really are no efforts to raise the funds we would need to have any hope of making an impact, right? Can anyone comment on why not? Since joining USMA about a year ago, this has surprised me more than anything else. ________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
