You may not have trouble shooting them down, but this is a situation where logic and reason don't matter. You're up against people outwardly hostile to metric, and they've got a lot of power. This probably requires a different approach rather than just debunking their straw-dummy arguments amongst ourselves. Perhaps writing each and every one of their members, many of whom are international firms, may be of use.
Remek On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Jeremiah MacGregor < jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > The FMI's excuses are so lame it really shouldn't take a big effort to > shoot them down. The USMA and NIST could easily counter their arguments. > So why aren't they? > > Jerry > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Pierre Abbat <p...@phma.optus.nu> > *To:* U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:33:39 AM > *Subject:* [USMA:43083] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute > objections to metric-only labeling option > > > FMI wrote: > >The majority of consumers do not understand metric measurements. > > Consumers have had enough exposure to liter and half-liter bottles of water > > and olive oil, 750 ml bottles of wine and oil, and 2 l bottles of pop to > understand what a liter is. Measuring cups have been graduated in > milliliters > for decades. Measuring devices in grams are not as common, but nutritional > labels indicate fat, protein, and carbs in grams, and the kilogram is > easily > related to the liter of water. (The 28 mg discrepancy is within bottling > tolerance.) > > >Value comparison between similar products of different sizes > > Products labeled in pounds are already also labeled in grams. The consumer > can > divide cents by grams in his head for both products (if he can divide in > his > head; if not, units don't matter). > > Once I had a very hard decision between a 250 g package of fresh > strawberries > and a 283 g package of frozen strawberries. The unit prices were very > close, > and I walked back and forth several times before deciding on the frozen. > > I've seen comparisons I cannot make with the current system of labeling. > One > is a 400 g pack of açaí (4 pieces, 100 g each) versus a 473 ml tub of açaí > sorbet. I know neither the density nor the fraction of açaí in the sorbet. > Another is a dry pint of tomatoes versus a pound of tomatoes. The dry pint > is > labeled 551 ml, but when I weigh it it is nowhere near 551 g, more like 300 > > or 330 g, and there are too few tomatoes for the density to be > well-defined. > I think that the dry pint and all its relatives should be abolished. > > >result in package change sizes. > > The proposed law doesn't require changing package sizes. It doesn't even > require changing labels. What will probably happen is that anything that's > round in grams will be labeled only in grams, and anything that's round in > pounds will be labeled in both. > > >and that will require changes in unit pricing labels. > > Even a small store can take in $1000 in a day. $1000 spread over 50 weeks > is a > trifle. > > >as well as nutrition information and recipe programs. > > Nutrition information is already in grams; packaging in round numbers of > grams > will make it easy to understand. Some packages currently have serving sizes > > and numbers of servings that don't match the package size. As to recipes, > Latinos at least write recipes in metric, and would find it easier if they > could buy tomatoes in grams. > > Pierre > > >
