I have 80,000 frequent flyer points on United and theyve just lowered, for the winter and spring, the number needed to come over. Plus I could do some ringing. Im tempted
Carleton From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Humphreys Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 16:02 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:43303] Re: discussion of Food Marketing Institute objections to metric-only labeling option 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 <mailto:jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> To: stan.do...@verizon.net ; U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu> 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 <mailto:rek...@gmail.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu> 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 < <mailto:jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> 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 <http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/windowslive/products/hotmail.aspx> out more! No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09 13:27:00 _____ Windows Live Hotmail just got better. Find out more! <http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/windowslive/products/hotmail.aspx>
