These are the situations where USMA'ers get to 'earn their keep'. Keep on writing persuasive notes to vendors urging the use of rational, user-friendly formats. Duncan
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: April 28, 2002 13:37 Subject: [USMA:19755] RE: Metric Standards and the USMA >On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:29:56 -0400, you wrote: > >>To put my views in a nutshell (for a change -- grin) the pro side of the >>EU harmonizing package sizes across its member states is that it >>provides an opportunity to ban half-pound and pound packages in >>disguise. The con side is that it is a restriction and contrary to free >>market practices and would be more costly to American producers sending >>goods to the EU. > >Butter, flour, rice, Jim? The list covers a small range of goods. > >>My wishes are that the EU abandon standard sizes but >>vehemently and ruthlessly demand metric-only labeling. Soon enough, the >>227 g packages will become 200 g or 250 g packages and the 454 g >>packages will become 400 g or 500 g packages. > >I'm not as sanguine about this as you, Jim. I cite again the fact that >pint-size milk cartons are still the norm in supermarkets here >(smaller stores use litres because they are smaller) and that most >ground coffee is still in 227 g packs rather than 250 g. > >Chris > >-- >UK Metric Association: http://www.metric.org.uk/ >
