Are the contents understated? No.  Nothing to complain about.  The distributor 
is dumb, but it is not an offense to understate the contents, only to overstate 
them.  With downsizing to avoid raising prices, I am seeing a lot of packages 
where the fill makes little sense in either Customary or metric.



>________________________________
> From: Harold_Potsdamer <[email protected]>
>To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> 
>Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:50 PM
>Subject: [USMA:54067] Re: Example of problem with round off errors, etc.
> 
>
>
>Did you look closely at the label in the picture?  It wasn’t 1 L, but 
999 mL.  1 L was converted to 33.8 fl oz and that was backconverted to 999 
mL.  
> 
>Since the label is in error, who do you complain to so hopefully the label 
will be fixed?
> 
>  
>From: John M. Steele 
>Sent: Thursday, 2014-06-26 21:21
>To: U.S. Metric Association 
>Subject: [USMA:54065] Re: Example of problem with round off errors, 
etc.
>  They have to leave the 1 L, because the FPLA requires DUAL labelling. 
Neither the metric only nor Customary alone is sufficient under the current 
law.  Your hypothetical is illegal in the US.
> 
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Parker Willey Jr. <[email protected]>
>>To: U.S. Metric Association  <[email protected]> 
>>Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:54  PM
>>Subject: [USMA:54055]  Example of problem with round off errors, etc.
>>
>> 
>>Hi:
>>
>> 
>>Suppose  someone takes a 1 liter bottle of Safflower seed oil and  converts 
>>the  label info to legacy units for sale in the US.
>>
>>Then  later, someone else wants to put on the label metric units, uses the 
>>legacy  info and converts it back resulting in a round off error.
>> 
>>See  the attached picture.
>>
>> 
>>Also,  in the discussion about "er" vs "re" endings on units of measure, you 
>>remember  the legacy unit of land area: acre.  It is defined as 43560 legacy 
>>square  feet.  Anyway, should it be spelled "acer".
>> 
>>Just  a tidbit.
>> 
>>...Parker  Willey Jr.
>>San  Jose, CA
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to