If this link is to be believed, http://www.thedieline.com/blog/2008/09/whats-that-litt.html you are close, but it is actually an assurance that the net contents on an average basis are correctly stated in accordance with an approved sampling plan and acceptance criteria. (Some units are allowed to be under the stated amount, but not too many, not by too much, and the average must exceed or equal what is claimed.)
________________________________ From: John Frewen-Lord <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 12:29:57 PM Subject: [USMA:46896] Re: The Good the Bad I have noticed for many years the ℮ symbol on most packaged products, both in the UK and to some extent in Canada, usually next to the imperial equivalent of a rational metric sized quantity. I always thought this was something to do with the EU (the ℮ representing the first letter of Europe?). But I just recently stumbled on this ℮ symbol in Windows character map (unicode U+212E). It is designated as the Estimated Symbol. Am I right then in assuming that where a product is dual labelled, only one of the quantities is legally correct (i.e. the metric quantity where metric first is the legal requirement) and the other is the Estimated (imperial) equivalent? That assumption certainly fits in with how most products that are dual dimensioned (metric first) appear here in the UK. NB - when I first tried to send this email, I got a message saying that the Unicode symbol may not get sent or be displayed on the receipients' computers, so if you don't see the ℮ symbol you will have to look it up in the Windows character set. John F-L ----- Original Message ----- >From: Stephen Davis >To: U.S. Metric Association >Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:53 PM >Subject: [USMA:46894] Re: The Good the Bad > > >I did mean to point out (but obviously didn't) that the US imports did indeed >have metric measurements on them alongside the cutomary. I believe also >(though not entirely sure) that the customary units were printed in a smaller >font. > >As to does it matter, well, in the grand scheme of things, it may not be the >most important thing in the world. However, as almost 100% of pre-packaged >items over here all all in metric measurements, so it seems to be a backward >step, that's all. > >I would like to do a bit of research to find out if this packaging from the US >is strictly legal as well. >----- Original Message ----- >>From: John M. Steele >>To: Stephen Davis ; U.S. Metric Association >>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:33 PM >>Subject: Re: [USMA:46886] Re: The Good the Bad >> >> >>Are those deodorants ALSO labeled with metric? Dual is the law here (US). >>If the floz are only supplementary, and the metric is correct, does it really >>matter is the floz is our floz or your floz? (Here, the floz must be correct >>because it is one half of the law, both are mandatory.) >> >>The mandatory dual makes it harder to determine whether metric is growing. >>The only way to judge is whether the metric is a "rounder" or "more >>sensible" qunatity. By that criteria, it is growing, but not by leaps and >>bounds. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ From: Stephen Davis <[email protected]> >>To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> >>Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 10:36:26 AM >>Subject: [USMA:46886] Re: The Good the Bad >> >> >>Sorry to refer to the UK again (its just that the UK is in my sphere of >>experience) but, in the last few years, certain US imports, particularly >>deoderants, are coming into UK ahops with floz readings on the boxes and >>cannisters.. >> >>I'm not sure if this is legal or not, but I would strongly suspect "not". >> >>"On the other hand Coke just came out with two new smaller sizes in our >>areas. I think its in anticipation of our wonderful governors proposal >>to tax sugary soft drinks by the oz. (gee I wonder how they are going to >>compute that on a 2 L bottle). The new sizes are 12 oz plastic bottles >>(cans are hard to reseal) and a new 8 oz can. O well." >> >>There just seems to be a ridiculous mix of units here. The Listerene kids >>mouth rinse are in metric units (albeit with customary units in brackets) but >>they appear to sell Coke in cans by the fluid ounce.. Just a >>thought....would anybody care all that much over there if a can of Coke was >>in hard metric units only? Nobody here does (probably because bottles and >>cans haven't been measured in floz for decades over here). People just ask >>for "a can of Coke", they don't really care about the amount that's in the >>can. >> >>There are a few exceptions to the all-metric rule in regard to packaged goods >>in the UK. 1136ml bottles of milk will have 2 pints written on them in >>smaller letters, as will 568ml bottles (1 pint). Very occasionally, you will >>see 568ml cans of lager with "Pint Can" written on it. These are very much >>the exception to the rule though, and they MUST have their metric equivalents >>written in a larger font. >> >>Are there any signs that metric, particularly with food and drink, is >>becoming more prominent in the US? >>-- >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Ressel" <[email protected]> >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:36 PM >>Subject: [USMA:46885] The Good the Bad >> >> >>> Listerine fluoride kids mouth rinse 500 ml size with instructions in >>> metric first and English in parentheses 10 ml does (two tablespoons). >>> Also the storage temps. were in Celsius followed by Fahrenheit in >>> parentheses. >>> >>> On the other hand Coke just came out with two new smaller sizes in our >>> areas. I think its in anticipation of our wonderful governors proposal >>> to tax sugary soft drinks by the oz. (gee I wonder how they are going to >>> compute that on a 2 L bottle). The new sizes are 12 oz plastic bottles >>> (cans are hard to reseal) and a new 8 oz can. O well. >>> -- >>> "Go for a Metric America" >>> Howard Ressel >>> Project Design Engineer, Region 4 >>> (585) 272-3372 >>> >>> >> >>
