Thank you, John, for this update on the hodge-podge of package sizes in Canada.
Given the dictates of inventory management (and the fact that most consumers
simply "eyeball" the size of a package), I am quite certain that most (and
eventually all) manufacturers in the USA (in addition to those who already
have, like Procter and Gamble) would switch to rational metric sizes once
voluntary metric-only labeling were made legal.
At that point, those weird package sizes would disappear in Canada, which would
also have the salutary effect of subconsciously reinforcing the "metric-ness"
of the world that Canadians (especially the younger ones) do business in, thus
also subconsciously reinforcing metric usage in everyday speech ("Say, honey,
should I get the 2 kg box of laundry detergent or the 5 kg box?") by channeling
references (no one will convert 2 kg or 5 kg and refer to an "x lb box" when
the metric size is plainly on the box) and also by teaching what such sizes
look and feel like in everyday contexts (which is how people internalize a
system of units).
-- Ezra
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Frewen-Lord" <j...@frewston.plus.com>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:03:43 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [USMA:46784] Re: Canadians seem to have nailed metrication when it
comes to weather
<snip>
I have just got back from a visit to Canada. Re my previous note some time ago
on sizes of products in Canadian stores, most products are labelled ONLY in
metric - even those marked as 946 mL, 3.78 L, etc. But in fact, I found the
oddest collection of product sizes I have ever seen - 532 mL, 1.03 L, 1.07 L
(go figure!), 612 mL, and so on, along with more rational sizes. I don't
remember it this way. I cannot make any sense of those values (and many more
like them) no matter what measurment units you use - metric, USC or UK/Canadian
imperial.
