Marcus: >?? What exactly is Jim 'right' about, Carl? Sorry, I don't follow you.
What I was saying is that the pizza was labeled with a non-rational FFU value. No one cares! No one is protesting, no one is complaining about the difficult 22.05 ounces. No one really cares if the net contents label is even or not. It doesn't hurt the customary system to have 22.05 ounces on a label, just like it won't hurt metrication to have 454 g on a label. >If the change was from, say, 454 to 400 g, actually very little is >involved in such change, especially if packages do not suffer any >change in format and/or size. Changing pricing schemes and product lines *is* an issue to companies. They have reports and records tracking sales and comparing factory outputs and things. If they change the package size, they have to pay attention to it. Besides, it will suddenly be a different size than the competitors' products. >But please remember that exposing consumers to metric-only labels that >used to be labeled like, say, 1 qt, 2 qt, 1 lb, 20 fl.oz., to 946 mL, >1.89 L, 454 g and 591 mL would piss them off (and with some reason!). Nonsense, for the reason I explained above. People don't get mad about nonrational package sizes. They have better things to do with their time. >? Noone would be 'telling them how to run their multi-billion dollar' >industry, Carl. Sure you are. >unless you really wanted to sabbotage the whole process from the start!... You've got to be kidding me. >As I mentioned many months before, I have no qualms with soft >metrication *provided* it's VERY-SHORT-lived, say, less than 6 months or so. American companies do not want mandates about metrication. Giving timetables without industry cooperation would be unnecessary government meddling. We need to give them reasons to support changes, not be wary of them. The marketplace will change, but very slowly. American companies are not willing to be forced into it. With dual labeling allowed, as it must be, it will be many years before ounces are gone. >Well... Tough luck, pal. The world has been 'telling' the >US to "shape up" for decades now! We're just tired of hearing >that they would change and nothing really happens. On the >contrary they keep pestering us to postpone progress and postpone >progress and postpone progress!... Enough is enough is enough! >As a consumer I already put a stop to this nonsense. I don't >buy "ifp" products, period! To the heck with them... ;-) I'm glad you found a constructive way to make your wishes known. The main thing that corporations look at is the bottom line. Keep in mind that several hundred million Americans don't pay much attention to labeling laws or ifp vs. metric. With such a huge base of consumers and voters who are not trying to metricate the domestic marketplace, it will take time. >What we REALLY need is a slightly higher dosage of good will >on the part of industries. A little planning and effort would >accomplish much if the will is there. When trying to catalyze social change, it is important to see the world as it is, not just as it should be or as it would be if you were in charge. Carl
