Rounding has little to do with unit pricing in metric units if computed and displayed properly. The unit gram is smaller than ounces so the SI would be more precise.
Stan Doore . ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremiah MacGregor To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 9:22 PM Subject: [USMA:43232] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option That makes more sense. I can't see what purpose there would be to unit price labels if they were deliberately made to confuse in such an obvious manner. Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: John M. Steele <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:39:18 PM Subject: [USMA:43229] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option You may need to look at whether your state adopted the NCWM Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation verbatim or changed it. However, the situation you cite would appear to be in conflict with the opening paragraph of Section 2, and with the entirety of section 6.1 of the UUPR. You might complain to your State's Weight and Measures inspectors. The store has some choice of units but they have to be used consistently across similar products. --- On Sun, 2/22/09, Michael Payne <metricm...@verizon.net> wrote: > From: Michael Payne <metricm...@verizon.net> > Subject: [USMA:43226] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 8:04 PM > English unit pricing does not protect the consumer, many > times I've seen items unit priced like 14.8c/oz for > loose mushrooms and 1.89/lb on packaged mushrooms, it's > not easy to compare which is cheaper, but these things are > all over the grocery store. If the same thing were in grams > and kg it would like be 52.2 c/100g loose or $4.17/kg. Just > by moving the decimal you can see the per kg price is > cheaper.. > > Mike Payne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jeremiah MacGregor > To: U.S. Metric Association > Cc: U.S. Metric Association > Sent: Sunday, 22 February 2009 14:30 > Subject: [USMA:43189] Re: discussion of Food Marketing > Institute objections to metric-only labeling option > > > Are you saying that unit pricing in English units would > not protect the consumer? Why does it have to be in metric > units? What difference does it make what units it is in as > long as it is in one unit? > > When you say metric only packaging are you referring to a > move to rounded metric sizes or are you referring to the > change in the FPLA which would allow metric only sizes even > if they are not round? > > Jerry > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: STANLEY DOORE <stan.do...@verizon.net> > To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > Cc: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 4:45:13 PM > Subject: [USMA:43170] Re: discussion of Food Marketing > Institute objections to metric-only labeling option > > > Consumers want to know value and that can't be done > by looking at packages since manufacturers use deceptive > packaging to disguise small quantities in large packages. > > Unit pricing in metric units only is the only way to > protect consumers.. This absolutely necessary. > > Metric only packaging will be a major step forward; > however, it will not help consumers making value purchases. > > Stan Doore > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Remek Kocz > To: U.S. Metric Association > Cc: U.S. Metric Association > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:11 AM > Subject: [USMA:43133] Re: discussion of Food Marketing > Institute objections to metric-only labeling option > > > 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
