2002-03-24 You are assuming that the 7 ounce is the true fill size and that 200 g is not? So what do they do, put one less candy piece in the bag when they sell it here?
I think they just use the 7 ounce declaration here instead of 7.xx ounces because 7 looks better to FFU eyes. And the 198.3 is a calculator conversion of 7 ounces. There is no legal problem if they declare the size to be 200 g if that is what it really is. And there should be no problem calling out 7 ounce as an equivalent. If there is a problem, then they will have to declare the contents as 7.xx ounces or give less candy in the bag. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Duncan Bath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-03-24 14:39 Subject: [USMA:19038] Re: Crummy Canadian labeling > 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 > >> > > >
