When (IF) they put 200 g on the label, they are then increasing their commitment to content over the 7 oz. one. If they do have a content of 200 g, there is no legal impediment to (also) including the smaller 7 oz. declaration. Duncan
-----Original Message----- From: kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: March 24, 2002 13:19 Subject: [USMA:19036] Re: Crummy Canadian labeling >2002-03-23 > >I think the problem stems from the US marketing end. In order to conform to >what is perceived as "American" practice, the product is labelled as 7 oz, >even though there is most likely no difference in contents from 200 g. >Rather then label it as 7 oz (200 g), as it should be, some "intelligent" >person probably figured that someone would realise that 200 g is not the >calculator value that one would get if one converts 7 ounces to grams using >the standard conversion factor. So, thus the label shows the nonsense we >have below. And it is possible that the person on the US end is >anti-metric and wants metric to look bad. > >I don't know if it is worth our effort bring this to their attention. We >might get one of those canned responses about it being what the customer >wants. On the other hand, someone might want to inquire if the contents >really does contain 200 g. But, again, chances are the person answering the >letter would most likely not know and just give any old answer to brush you >off. > >The only way to make sure of the contents is to buy some of the product and >weigh it out. And if it is 200 g, then you know for sure that the label is >fictitious. And it might be some ammunition to use if you decide to contact >them about the erroneous label. > >I would hope that if the day shall come that the FPLA is ever amended to >allow metric only, that it also requires that numbers be practical, even if >they are soft conversions. > > >John > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, 2002-03-23 14:59 >Subject: [USMA:19024] Re: Crummy Canadian labeling > > >> Judging from the crazy metric quantity, 198.3 g, I think that it was >packed >> in the USA. Just another attempt to make metric look stupid in comparison >> with ifp. Why should the Germans do such a thing? >> The Werther bags packed in Germany and sold in Europe, including in the >UK >> or Ireland where the labels are in the English language, are always in >even >> decent 200 g or other rational metric values. The bags sold in Britain and >> Ireland MAY have a supplementary 7 oz. indication, but I have not noticed >> it. Those sold in the continent are metric-only. >> >> BTW, Today I saw Uncle Ben's bags of rice, from the USA, in rational 5 kg >> bags. Metric only. >> >> Han >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Saturday, 2002-03-23 14:38 >> Subject: [USMA:19003] Re: Crummy Canadian labeling >> >> <snip> >> >> On my recent trip I saw Werther's toffees in "7 oz (198.3g)" packs. They >> said the product was made in Germany, but it wasn't clear if it was packed >> there (it had a US address). >> >> Chris >> >
