With the "pound collapse"  (note, *not* dollar collapse) you could make a 
killing in the stores over here :-)

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:46:20 -0800
From: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com
Subject: [USMA:43290] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute  objections to 
metric-only labeling option
To: usma@colostate.edu



Because it is even cheaper to stay home and ask questions.  Have you been there 
already?  If so, why not tell us your experience?   
 
Jerry




From: Brian J White <br...@bjwhite.net>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 8:12:41 PM
Subject: [USMA:43284] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to 
metric-only labeling option

Jerry.  Why don't you just buy a cheap plane ticket to London and check all 
this stuff out?  You seem to be really curious about the UK.  

At 17:07 2009-02-27, Stephen Humphreys wrote:


Depends where you shop


Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:50:41 -0800
From: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com
Subject: [USMA:43277] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to 
metric-only labeling option
To: usma@colostate.edu

Sweet......   
 
I wonder if it is the same in the UK.
 
Jerry


From: Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:15:06 PM
Subject: [USMA:43254] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to 
metric-only labeling option

Dear Stan, Jerry, Remek, Pierre and All, 

This is the way we do it in Australia. As you can see the price per 100 grams 
makes comparisons quite easy.. It doesn't matter whether the initial size is 
rounded or not.

 

This is taken from an advertising catalog placed in our letter box yeasterday.

Cheers,
 
Pat Naughtin

PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008

Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped 
thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric 
system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each 
year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides 
services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for 
commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and 
in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, 
NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See 
http://www.metricationmatters.com/ or to get the free 'Metrication
 matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to 
subscribe.

On 2009/02/25, at 12:23 AM, STANLEY DOORE wrote:



    No. 

    Unit pricing in whatever standard set of units  is necessary so long as 
unit pricing is uniform to avoid consumer misunderstanding. 

    If unit pricing remains in English units whereas packages are labeled in 
only in metric, consumers may not trust the product or the store even if the 
numbers are correct.

 

Stan Doore

 


----- Original Message -----

From: Jeremiah MacGregor

To: stan.do...@verizon.net ; U.S. Metric Association

Cc: U.S. Metric Association

Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 9:30 AM

Subject: Re: [USMA:43170] 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






Windows Live Hotmail just got better. Find out more! 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09 
13:27:00

_________________________________________________________________

Hotmail, Messenger, Photos  and more - all with the new Windows Live. Get 
started! 
http://www.download.live.com/

Reply via email to