I have a 1.18 L bottle of shampoo, which would look a little funny without its
companion "40 oz." I believe it is not strictly FPLA-compliant as I believe
1QT
8OZ is mandatory, but 40 OZ may be specified in addition. What is odder is
that
it came in a bundle that included a smaller bottle, which is an even metric
size, 200 mL (6.8 FL OZ). A more useful small size would be a 100 mL bottle
that I could take on an airplane.
________________________________
From: John Frewen-Lord <j...@frewston.plus.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 2:20:48 AM
Subject: [USMA:48407] Re: Trip to Canada
I've often wondered why McDonalds doesn't rename its 'Quarter Pounder' to
something on the lines of 'Big One Hundred' or something similar (" ...a full
100 grams of fresh beef...."). Most customers would not notice the approx. 12%
reduction in meat content, and McDonalds would save that amount in meat costs
while likely getting away with charging the same price.
Blame not only the FPLA for non-rational sizing of products in Canada, but also
NAFTA, where the US managed to outlaw Canada's original laws regarding product
sizing.
In regards to BC, it is probably the least 'progressive' in terms of achieving
full metric conversion. Surprisingly, I've found Alberta - cowboy country - to
be more metric than anywhere else, while in Ontario and Nova Scotia - two
provinces I have spent much time in this year - you will have to look very hard
indeed to see any official signs on the roads with miles on them (and ft-in on
bridge signs - though more of these in NS than Ont), while in the stores,
anything pre-packaged (including say cold meats) is invariably (and as required
by law) to be labelled in metric units. Admittedly (and as I've mentioned
before and as Harry Wyeth pointed out) some of those sizes are oddball indeed,
and I couldn't relate them to ANY rational size, metric, imperial or USC
(shampoo in 1.08 L ?).
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
>From: ezra.steinb...@comcast.net
>To: U.S. Metric Association
>Cc: U.S. Metric Association
>Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:31 AM
>Subject: [USMA:48406] Re: Trip to Canada
>
>
>Unless they're educated to display price per 100 grams! ;-)
>
>-- Ezra
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Carleton MacDonald" <carlet...@comcast.net>
>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
>Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:34:57 PM
>Subject: [USMA:48405] Re: Trip to Canada
>
>
>One big reason they want to show prices in pounds is because the price per
>unit
>is lower. Marketeering, after all.
>
>cm
>
>From:owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of
>ezra.steinb...@comcast.net
>Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 17:14
>To: U.S. Metric Association
>Subject: [USMA:48404] Re: Trip to Canada
>
>This is precisely where I think amending the FPLA to permit metric-only
>labeling
>will have a disproportionately larger impact in Canada than it will in the
>country (USA) that actually amends the law.
>
>Once the "bandwagon" effect takes hold among US manufacturers to switch to
>rational metric sizes with metric-only units, Canadians will likely see a
>wholesale change-over to metric only units and rational sizes in packaged
>goods.
>That has got to provide (in my view at least) a strong positive impulse
>towards
>greater acceptance and use of metric units on their side of the border.
>
>Wishful thinking or prescience? We'll find out soon enough (if the <bleep>ing
>FPLA ever gets amended and signed into law)!
>
>-- Ezra
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harry Wyeth" <hbwy...@earthlink.net>
>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
>Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:23:16 AM
>Subject: [USMA:48402] Trip to Canada
>
>Many readers already know this, but here is what I found after a week in the
>Vancouver area:
>
>
>road signs in km, but at least a few still in miles, same with bridge height
>signs; lots of signs with "Km" or "Kg"
>some "kms" private signs
>all exercise machines at a gym, and weights, still in lbs. and miles
>grocery stores a total mess: fruits and veges in pounds, with kg sometimes
>added; milk in nice 2 and 4 L containers; stuff in cans and bottles mostly in
>US
>style
>
> containers with oddball metric contents which are undoubtedly US
>sizes;
>cans of beer in 355 and even 34-something mL sizes
>a weird poster on a taxicab window advised riders that the cab rate was a
>certain rate (such as $1.50) per 1.5 km, and helpfully added that this
>amounted
>to xxx cents per something like 52.031 metres or some crazy figure!
>I think fish and meat servings at restaurants often were offered in 8 and 12
>ounce options
>
>Canada obviously has a long way to go, but this is not news.
>
>HARRY WYETH
