Realistically though - it still must be the case that people pick up a can,
tin, bottle etc of red bull/coke/etc on visual size rather than be specific
about the numbering on the side of the product (even if "he" [ahem] wouldn't
allow it lol!).
Obviously the figures are there to meet regulations but ultimately the customer
would choose a packed item on it's visual scale.
Needless to say I fully understand why this is an important topic for those who
are (genuinely) pro-metric though.
In the UK there's a bit of an attachment to the "pinta" in respect to milk and
just as the 2 liter bottle of coke has become popular the pint-of-milk remains
popular regarding actual usage of numbers and packed items. I see the 2l coke
and pint of milk as the only real examples where figures are used in packed
supermarket items. In fact a lot of supermarkets have adopted putting a large
unitless number on the side of the cartons that represents the number of pints
therein (I wonder if this is to allow that number to have precedence but be
within the rules due to lack of words).
Ezra - In case you were deliberately mislead - yes there are other firms that
pack milk in round metric but as you look at the shelves the "standard" milks -
so to speak - ie the ordinary skimmed, semi, and full fat - make up the vast
visual bulk (usually on a platform and then palleted up beneath the platform).
I concur with MArtin entirely regarding this point. Thus to claim that
'metric milk' makes up a large proportion of milks is extremely misleading as
if you looked at the entire milk counter you'll see mainly the 'ordinary' milk
containers - which show imperial/metric notation. If you look about for goat
milk, soya milk, milk from a specific farm, low lactose milk, and possibly Dog
milk in Argyll and Bute!, then combined they could be used to exaggerate the
different available milk brands but this ignores the visual and most sold milk
types. Unfortunately I cannot think of another similar example to further
illustrate the point.
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 02:32:49 +0000
From: ezra.steinb...@comcast.net
To: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:44938] Supplementary indications
Yes, here's another interesting side effect of the FPLA not yet being amended
to allow metric-only labeling.
My hunch is that Red Bull would switch to a rational metric size once the
amendment is ever adopted!
Speaking of metric-only labeling options, I'm wondering if Paul Trusten has any
news regarding New York State and the UPLR?
Ezra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Cooper" <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com>
To: "Ezra Steinberg" <ezra.steinb...@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:04:24 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Your question on "Metric Views"
That's just about it, Ezra.
The only time any action would be likely to be taken would be if the US pint
wasn't specifically described as such.
I wouldn't allow "473 ml 1 pt" on a package for sale in the UK.
Interestingly, Red Bull (an Austrian energy drink) have just introduced a new
473 ml size. There's no supplementary indication marked on the cans I've seen,
but I wouldn't be surprised if the same cans (with different markings) appeared
in the US
--- On Wed, 29/4/09, Ezra Steinberg <ezra.steinb...@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Ezra Steinberg <ezra.steinb...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Your question on "Metric Views"
To: "Ken Cooper" <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 2:22 AM
Thanks for all the pertinent detail, Ken. That really clears it up.
Bottom line: manufacturers can continue to put Imperial units on their packages
as they have done before and no one will squeak about it so long as they comply
with all the other laws that you have pointed out.
Cheers,
Ezra
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Cooper
To: ezra.steinb...@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 6:49 PM
Subject: Your question on "Metric Views"
Ezra
I note that you have asked a question on "Metric Views" regarding my statement
that
“On 1/1/2010, Imperial loses its status as a “supplementary indication”.. IMO,
that doesn’t mean that it is forbidden from appearing (as long as the metric
measure is primary)”
I'll try to set out my thoughts on this matter below.
Firstly, some context. My statement above was made in response to Gene's
questions about markings on packages. For the avoidance of doubt, I am
referring to packages made up on metric equipment & bearing a primary metric
marking. As an example, lets assume that we are talking about a package of
sausages made up on a metric scale that works in 2 g divisions. The package
weighs 454 g.
Currently, UK law requires that the package must be marked "454 g". The packer
may also choose to mark the "e-mark" (a metrological passport throughout the
EEC) and a supplementary indication.
The full label W&M label will therefore read "454 g e 1 lb"
This is currently explicitly permitted by virtue of Section 8 (5A) of the
Weights & Measures Act 1985
8 (5A) Nothing in this section precludes the use for trade up to and including
31st December 2009 of any supplementary indication; and for this purpose any
indication of quantity ('the imperial indication') is a supplementary
indication if—
a) it is expressed in a unit of measurement other than a metric unit,
b) it accompanies an indication of quantity expressed in a metric unit ('the
metric indication') and is not itself authorised for use in the circumstances
as a primary indication of quantity, and
c) the metric indication is the more prominent, the imperial indication being,
in particular, expressed in characters no larger than those of the metric
indication.
The effect of this section, as I state in my original post, is that Imperial
loses it's status as a supplementary indication on 1/1/2010.
Pretty black & white so far, I hope!
Now we get into legal argument........
If I was a trader that wished to continue dual marking, I would frame my
argument like this:-
I am weighing the goods in metric & marking the goods in metric. Therefore my
metric equipment is in use for trade & the weight determined by that equipment
is the weight marked upon the pack of sausages.
Under UK criminal law, an act is legal unless it is specifically forbidden.
I would agree that imperial is no longer permitted as a supplementary
indication, but can you point me at the section of the Weights & Measures Act
that specifically forbids me from marking additional information in another
measurement system? I'm using metric for trade purposes - not imperial!
Now, the current opinion in O'Keefe states
Quantity of goods
This term does not appear to have received any judicial interpretation, at
least in the context of weights and measures legislation. The expression is now
causing difficulties due on the one hand to the general prohibition of the 'use
for trade' of imperial units of measurement (by s 8), and on the other, to the
absence of any more general prohibition of the use of such units, which might
have more properly reflected the requirement of Council Directive 80/181/EEC as
implemented in the UK by the Units of Measurement Regulations 1986,
I cannot see a UK court convicting a defendant of "use for trade" of imperial
measurement after 1/1/10 when he has complied with all relevant legislation
regarding using metric equipment & marking a metric weight on the package
(assuming that the additional imperial information is less prominent than the
metric weight)
This is purely my opinion, and will probably never be tested in a court now
that the EU have announced the proposed changes to 80/181/EEC.
For the avoidance of doubt, the UK Government may decide to enact legislation
that specifically retains the definition of "Supplementary Indications", but
IMO, there is no need for this legislation as there is nothing that
specifically bans imperial from appearing.
Finally, I would point out that (as far as I am aware) no action has been taken
against US manufacturers that have marked "473 ml 1 US Pt" on packages sold in
the UK. The US Pint is not an authorised supplementary indication, therefore if
my interpretation of the law is incorrect, any package marked in this manner
would be illegal.
The fact that no enforcement action has been taken would tend to support my
views on this matter.
Feel free to share this email if you see fit. If anyone disagrees with my
interpretation, challenge them to draft a criminal charge under the Weights &
Measures Act 1985 that they think would stand up in court. Over the last few
years, I've asked various pro-met & pro-imp UK posters to do this and no-one
has ever come up with a suggested section number to frame the charge around
never mind an actual draft charge!
"Ken"
_________________________________________________________________
Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
