My container of French's mustard declares 340 g (not 226 g or 397 g) meaning that there are different labels for different fills. My regret is that the choices of fill (sizes) are not 200 g or 300 g or 400 g. However, I do support freedom of fill amounts so long as the consumer is not cheated by systematic short fills as determined by Maximum Allowable Variations (MAV) in the US (or by *tolerance boundaries* in the UK}. EAM
---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:25:28 -0400 >From: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]> >Subject: Fw: [USMA:50180] Williams Changes Their Label -- I had an impact >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Thanks for sending the pictures. > > French's is a very popular brand in the US, but I > don't usually purchase it. Here is a picture of the > same shaped bottle. Everything looks the same > except the top part of the label. Note: your label > has colours spelled the British way. The US label > says no mess cap. > > Notice the US label shows 8 OZ. (226 g) with no e > mark. > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Frenchs-Classic-Mustard-14-Ounce-Squeeze/dp/tech-data/B0025VF90S > > So it proves that there is no common label for all > markets despite what opposers of the EU directive > claimed would be costly. They wanted a common label > for all markets, yet they don't have one. > > I can see where you would consider the 397 g size to > be just as metric since it is stated only in metric > and was most likely filled to a metric amount using > a metric filling machine and its contents tested in > metric. But to me and others, it is a size that is > hidden USC ounces. Maybe if it was 398 g, or any > size that didn't correspond to a rounded ounce size, > I wouldn't care either. I believe that most metric > supporters prefer rounded numbers like 400 g to feel > comfortable that the product is truly metric. > > Best Regards > > > > From: Beranger > Sent: Monday, 2011-03-28 18:20 > To: Kilopascal > Subject: Re: [USMA:50180] Williams Changes Their > Label -- I had an impact > > Here are copies of the front and back labels. > > I still fail to understand your obsession with > rounded metric amounts. As I have stated before, I > consider this 397g package to be just as metric as a > 400g pack > > regards > > Ber > > --- On Mon, 28/3/11, Kilopascal <[email protected]> > wrote: > > From: Kilopascal <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [USMA:50180] Williams Changes Their > Label -- I had an impact > To: "Beranger" <[email protected]>, > [email protected], "U.S. Metric > Association" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 28 March, 2011, 1:53 > > I'd be curious to see what the label for your > American mustard looks like and if it is a brand > I'm familiar with. I have yet to see the e mark > on American packages intended for the American > market. Unless you omitted something, your label > also appears to be missing the required USC > supplemental indication if sold in the US. > > The point I'm trying to make is that American > packagers whined to the EU that the metric > only directive would force them to have multiple > labels. Yet if I'm right in your case, your label > is different than that of the US. So the entire > American argument is/was hollow. > > The only thing I do notice is that the 397 g is a > hidden 14 US ounces, whereas if this product was > non-American or packaged in a metric country it > would be labeled as 400 g. Even if the mustard > was packed to the declaration I still would feel > cheated out of 3 g of product. > > > > From: Beranger > Sent: Sunday, 2011-03-27 16:35 > To: [email protected] ; U.S. Metric > Association ; Kilopascal > Subject: Re: [USMA:50180] Williams Changes Their > Label -- I had an impact > > > > I have a jar of American Mustard (for hot-dogs) in > my fridge. It was made and packed in the USA. It > is marked "e 397 g" > > I have no idea (and don't really care) whether it > was packed to the average or minimum system. I'm > happy enough to know that it falls within the > specified tolerances > >... ------------------------------------------------
