Well, I pose this one: Does the avarage consumer know and understand the differences and relationships between ounces, pints, quarts and gallons? Many times I see unit pricing in quarts but the items being sold have no mention of quarts on them. They are either fl oz, mL or L. It seems to me to be very disingenuous on the part of the food marketing industry to "claim" most consumers don't understand metric or rather, understand customary units better all the while they are changing package sizes to non-standard sizes and putting only fl oz rather than expressing rounded up units such as quarts or gallons. Meantime, the unit pricing does not reflect these. You know as well as I that most consumers don't even pay attention to the units on the package to begin with. They buy by size--that is small, medium, large. How many people have been hoodwinked into thinking they are buying a half-gallon carton of something when it really contains less. The package size is a little smaller but it "looks" like a half-gallon.
As for the space argument that rationally sized metric products won't fit into the current racks, refridgerators or shelves is a specious one at best. I have seen plenty of rationally-sized metric products in the supermarkets from soda and juice to cleaners and they fit fine. One other note, the FMI refers to the "metric experiment" I have news for them: it's no experiment. As many here can point out, many industries have converted to metric or work in metric with no issues and have made the deliberate decision to do so. What we have is a long, slow, painful inevability that could be made quicker and less painful. Phil On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Paul Trusten <trus...@grandecom.net>wrote: > FMI claims that the American public does not understand the metric system > and is not demanding metric products. I think there is some truth to this > claim. Although the U.S. public has taken to metric soft drinks (and hard > drinks, too) , it remains to be seen if the average U.S. shopper > understands, *upon inspection, *how, for example, a 1 L bottle relates to > a 500 mL bottle or a 750 mL bottle. Now, you and I on this list laugh at > such a statement, because we have made this understanding of metric units as > instinctive as cents relate to dollars. But FMI is talking about the > average consumer who, under the FPLA amendment, suddenly will be faced with > labeling, shelf tags, and advertising in metric units only, and will have > to make a purchase based upon metric-only labeling. Its point that numerous > questions will be handed to store personnel is a valid one (I speak here > from personal experience as a retail pharmacist over the years, when any > consumer-product issue comes up from behind and taps the public on the > shoulder) . > > We must face the fact that Americans are generally not taught or oriented > to using, and *comparing,* metric units. Buying a 2 L bottle of Coke is > one thing, but really processing that measurement information is another. > Does the average shopper know that 2 L = 2000 mL, and can (s)he yet quickly > and easily relate a 2 L bottle to a 250 mL bottle? I don't think so. I say > we need to work to change that. We who extol the advantages of metric need > to educate our fellow Americans on features, and the virtues the metric > system. This just isn't common knowledge yet in America. > > Developing a plan for consumer metric education is going to be a top > priority for me at USMA in the coming months. > > We can accomplish two things with mass consumer education: to reduce any > possible public confusion over metric units, and also to sell the decimal > advantage of metric. > > > Paul Trusten, R.Ph. > Public Relations Director > U.S. Metric Association, Inc. > www.metric.org > 3609 Caldera Blvd. Apt. 122 > Midland TX 79707-2872 US > +1(432)528-7724 > trus...@grandecom.net >
