Apparently, only Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont are sending me links to *current* laws, regulations, or rules *mandating* Unit Pricing in their respective states. (five of the ten jurisdiction mandating Unit Pricing, to date)
However, we do see that Massachusetts and New York, in addition, *require* units in the denoninators of Unit Pricing which are not related by multiples of ten. The numerators (dollars or cents) do not impede mental calculations. As John Steele emphasizes, multiples of ten in the *denominators* of Unit Pricing are necessary to facilitate mental calculations of comparatiave values for selections of best buys by consumers. Such mental arithmetic is not easily done in Massachusetts or in New York under their current requirements! Hopefully, a "Best Practice Guide for Unit Pricing" can be promulgated, which recommends only *multiple-of-ten* factors in the denominators of Unit Prices, before more states mandate denominators based on factors of 8, 16, 32 etc. Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: John M. Steele [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 7:34 AM To: kilopascal; [email protected]; mechtly, eugene a; MacDonald Carleton Subject: Re: [USMA:53767] RE: Links to Mandated Unit Pricing And between different sizes. But it is the "uniformity" issue. The law requires (but is not enforced) uniformity within a store amongst "like product" but allowing a choice of 4-6 units, and different stores can use different units. The Customary units can't be easily converted in one's head. If metric were mandated, there could still be different choices between stores, but I can mix dollars, cents kilograms and hectogram (liters and deciliters for liquids) in my head. It is perfectly useful and we don't need mandated standard sizes, we just need mandated metric. In Michigan, very little added cost. We took price stickers off the items and required shelf edge stickers, the unit price is incorporated in that, so no "added" sticker. Since the price and product identification have to be right (10X penalty if not), the unit price is easily figured on the computer printing stickers. ________________________________ From: kilopascal <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; Mechtly Eugene <[email protected]>; MacDonald Carleton <[email protected]>; Steele John <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 8:21 AM Subject: [USMA:53767] RE: Links to Mandated Unit Pricing I don’t understand how anyone finds unit price labelling as useful. All you can do with it is compare the unit price of Brand A versus B and more in the same store. But what if you are only interested in the price of Brand A between stores? The labels don’t tell you which store has the lower price or the better deal. Unit price labelling adds cost to the products and all because there is no mandate for standard sizes. [USMA:53767] RE: Links to Mandated Unit Pricing<https://webmail.illinois.edu/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> Michael Payne<https://webmail.illinois.edu/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> Sat, 03 May 2014 01:31:30 -0700<https://webmail.illinois.edu/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> Observations from Virginia on wine comparisons. Safeway and Giant grocery stores list prices per fluid ounce, Costco by the litre. I’m not sure about Total Beverage, a large wine and beer retailer, but I suspect it is also price per litre. Many times i’ve seen the same item with either cents per ounce or cents per pound. When I’ve queried this practice, it appears the distributor may be responsible for the price label fixed to the shelf. Just about every time I go into Safeway, there are one or two items where the amount charged at the register is not the same price listed on the shelf price label. Mike On 29 Apr 2014, at 02:22, Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> wrote: > I can certainly back Eugene up in his proposal for "best practice". In the > UK the law requires that most unit prices be per kilogram. This is not > always enforced. Many supermarkets, especially on the delicatessen and > confectionary counters, have a mix of unit pricing "per kilogram" and "per > 100 g". At least it is easy to convert between the two in order to compare > "like with like" and certainly a lot easier than "per pound" and "per > quarter". > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]<https://webmail.illinois.edu/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>] > On Behalf > Of mechtly, eugene a > Sent: 29 April 2014 01:33 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Cc: Kenneth Butcher; David Sefcik > Subject: [USMA:53764] Links to Mandated Unit Pricing > > Five of the ten "Directors of Legal Metrology" (or their representatives, > usually in departments of agriculture) have now sent me links to their > respective "current" Laws or Regulations or Rules mandating Unit Pricing. > > These Rules apply in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, or > Vermont, respectively. > > Connecticut, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and DC have yet to send links > to their *current* Laws or Regulations, or Rules on Unit Pricing, although > these five jurisdictions are also believed to mandate Unit Pricing. > > Maryland, in particular, mandates Unit Pricing, and *permits* metric or > not-metric units in the denominators of Unit Price. > > On the other hand, Massachusetts and New York , mandate Unit Pricing, but > *require* not-metric units in the denominators of Unit Price; such as (per > fluid ounce), (per pint), (per quart) or (per gallon)! > > This malpractice from the 19th Century persists in the present, and hampers > value comparisons as noted by John Steele in his study of all 50+ > jurisdictions in the United States, as of 2009. > > "Best Practice" clearly requires units in the denominators of Unit Price, > that are related by multiples of ten, for easy comparisons of value by > mental arithmetic. Examples: grams or milligrams; liters or milliliters, > and meters or millimeters. > > Mandating units outside the SI (such as fluid ounces, pints, quarts, > gallons) *does not* accomplish this service to buyers of consumer > commodities and constitutes "Worst Practice" as in the words of John Steele. > > > Eugene Mechtly > > >
