This is an article posted by Jim Elwell on the USMA list server.

This brings up an interesting point: two or three years ago I was in the local supermarket (Smith's, now owned by Fred Meyer), and was somewhat taken aback when I actually thought about the number of different packages of toothpaste in that aisle.

There were variations in:
manufacturer (Colgate, Crest, private labels, etc.)
"purpose" (whitening, sensitive teeth, etc.)
taste (mint, regular, etc.)
size (travel, home, family, etc.)
tube variations (screw top, flip top, etc.)
package variations (tube, dispenser, etc.)

I stopped counting the different items when I hit 100; total was probably 150 or so.

Now, ask yourself: how many people can tell you the size of the tube of toothpaste they buy? I don't mean something like "travel size," but something specific like "3 oz" or "50 g". I doubt 1% of the population can answer this question. I can't.

There are eleven people here at QSI today (yes, on Saturday) and I just ran around and asked each of them. Ten had no idea, or just said "the big tube" or something like that. One actually said "The six ounce tube." But, she was an executive at Proctor & Gamble (Colgate brand) for 20+ years, and so is a bit more attuned to such things than most of us.

So I would suggest that a toothpaste company packaging its toothpaste in hard metric sizes (e.g., 100 g [3.4 oz]) cannot possibly be a detriment in the consumer's mind, since the consumer will not notice it!

And the unit of measure cannot be very important from a marketing standpoint, because if it was there would not likely be such a variety of other marketing angles to a single product.

Now, how do we get a consumer products manufacturer to realize they can switch at least some items to metric-size packages and NOT suffer any consequences? Plus realize the benefits of having the same package sizes all over the world.

Jim Elwell



metre
An interesting proposition that has little chance of success. Since only 1 person knew the actual weight of toothpaste bought, companies can easily use deceptive tube sizes and packages to gain advantages over competitors. Making a tube longer, but slightly skinnier compared to another, gives the impression that it contains at least as much, if not more paste. So, how do you convince producers to voluntarily adopt identical sizes? Without a binding contract one manufacturer can exploit that effort by selling a few grams more at the same price. Or if a competitor reverts to selling in ounces that shoppers can’t compare to grams? Left to their own devices most companies will perpetuate a plethora of varying gram sizes, which leaves consumers struggling to find which one is the best buy.
A similar situation arose in Britain with carpets after one supplier broke ranks and reverted to selling in square yards. To compete, everyone had to follow suit.
Since it is in the interest of consumers to have plenty of brands, but a minimum of toothpaste containers to choose from, why should companies dictate which it shall be? America’s democracy seems to be skewed in favour of business. While corporations have no vote, they have often monetary reasons and clout to influence governments federal and State.
The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 recognized advantages the metric system can deliver for the whole nation, but targeted party donations and lobbying of special interest groups made a mockery of it. That means party donations outvote ordinary voters interests anytime.
To avoid that rather undemocratic state of affairs, European governments champion consumer rights in a meaningful way. Something American voters have yet to learn.

If some ignorant Yanks consider this Socialism than I can only say the more the better.

To expect large numbers of disparate, uninformed and uninterested individuals to organise, unite, pay and lobby for simple and fair measurements is a joke.
This is what governments are voted in for.



.

Some good points have been raised (although I'm not sure that I agree with the bitterness towards Americans).

Who here would know the amount of toothpaste in their toothpaste container? I'm willing to bet that almost 100%, if not 100%, buy their toothpaste by design of container and it's size. And there would be brand loyalty too.

Re: Utopia? October 17 2005, 3:01 PM

KB
Some good points have been raised (although I'm not sure that I agree with the bitterness towards Americans

metre
No bitterness, just facts.

But I've had a look at your other posts.

<<metre
An interesting proposition that has little chance of success. Since only 1 person knew the actual weight of toothpaste bought, companies can easily use deceptive tube sizes and packages to gain advantages over competitors. Making a tube longer, but slightly skinnier compared to another, gives the impression that it contains at least as much, if not more paste. So, how do you convince producers to voluntarily adopt identical sizes? Without a binding contract one manufacturer can exploit that effort by selling a few grams more at the same price. Or if a competitor reverts to selling in ounces that shoppers can’t compare to grams? Left to their own devices most companies will perpetuate a plethora of varying gram sizes, which leaves consumers struggling to find which one is the best buy.
>>

I have to disagree with your concern of "ripoff" sizes.

Most US states have "unit pricing" laws requiring the retailer to a compute a "unit price" for all "like product." He could use metric or Customary for the unit, but can't switch on different sizes or brands of "like product."
However, different retailers could choose different pricing units for the same item, so it is harder to compare store to store.

If the consumer cares to read the shelf edge label, he can compare unit prices across brands, types, sizes (not that cheapest is always best). Although a few states lack unit pricing laws, I doubt a special "ripoff" size for those states is practical. (Of course, a consumer too stupid or lazy to read the labels is "fair game.")

As for size proliferation, the Secretary of Commerce can not directly make rules. However, the law allows him to appeal to industry trade associations to "voluntarily" develop series of reasonable standard sizes (which will also be voluntary on the members, if he feels there is excess proliferation. I said "voluntary" in quotes as most businesses and trade associations want good relationships with the Department of Commerce, and you wouldn't ignore a letter like that. Choosing which sizes, however, would be left to the trade association.

<<
companies can easily use deceptive tube sizes and packages to gain advantages over competitors.... how do you convince producers to voluntarily adopt identical sizes? Without a binding contract one manufacturer can exploit that effort by selling a few grams more at the same price. Or if a competitor reverts to selling in ounces that shoppers can’t compare to grams? Left to their own devices most companies will perpetuate a plethora of varying gram sizes, which leaves consumers struggling to find which one is the best buy.
>>

Sounds good in theory, but not seen in practice. The US lacks any laws requiring products to be sold only in particular sizes, yet the type of ripoff that metre describes is not seen. Yet another example of pro-metrics trying to imagine problems that don't really exist.

The problem does exist. We just tolerate it.

Daniel

It sounds like only you are tolerating it.

That's over 50 years of toleration, I guess.

But seriously - is there a ground swell of people in the US complaining about their tooth paste containers and the like?

<<The problem does exist. We just tolerate it.>>

I'll give you that proliferation exists. What exactly is the problem?

Unlike an occasional purchase like carpet, we all regularly buy and use toothpaste. However we choose, we have experience at it and I would argue are unlikely to be ripped off, except that our preferred type (flavor, function, size, whatever) may not be the cheapest per gram, but is worth the premium in our minds.

There are many choices, but the consumer decides by his preferences which succeed in which die. I can assure you I believe that is MUCH better solution than a few ill-chosen sizes and types picked by government mandate. The USSR used to have that kind of economy. Look how successful that was. Maybe not every consumer is a rocket scientist but compared to a government bureaucrat, they are pretty damn smart.

I don't agree the current range of offerings is a problem. If I did, letting the government mandate sizes would be tenth on a list of three possible solutions.

I do agree our preferred system of measurement should be required labeling, and Customary optional (or forbidden, I don't really care), but that is as far as I'll go.

JS
I have to disagree with your concern of "ripoff" sizes.

Metre
Fair enough. That idea came to me when I read about app. 150 different ways to sell the same product. Why would manufacturers do that, if not to confuse shoppers?
JS
Most US states have "unit pricing" laws requiring the retailer to a compute a "unit price" for all "like product." He could use metric or Customary for the unit, but can't switch on different sizes or brands of "like product."
However, different retailers could choose different pricing units for the same item, so it is harder to compare store to store.
If the consumer cares to read the shelf edge label, he can compare unit prices across brands, types, sizes (not that cheapest is always best). Although a few states lack unit pricing laws, I doubt a special "ripoff" size for those states is practical. (Of course, a consumer too stupid or lazy to read the labels is "fair game.")

metre
“As you say, if the consumer cares” he/she, as a rule, obviously doesn’t and companoies are the first to know that.

JS
As for size proliferation, the Secretary of Commerce can not directly make rules. However, the law allows him to appeal to industry trade associations to "voluntarily" develop series of reasonable standard sizes (which will also be voluntary on the members, if he feels there is excess proliferation. I said "voluntary" in quotes as most businesses and trade associations want good relationships with the Department of Commerce, and you wouldn't ignore a letter like that. Choosing which sizes, however, would be left to the trade association.

Metre
This is precisely what I meant, that unelected industry captains, or their trade representatives decide which way, or whether it will be done. Let’s assume the Secretary of Commerce writes that letter and if it is not to industry’s liking it will lobby and cajole (donations) their State and federal representatives to amend it in their favour.
We talk about a major philosophical divide between many European countries and America. Look how metrication was introduced in 1975. America was economically in dire straits and ready to do anything to get out of it. With metric countries booming it must have dawned on some people in the administration that long overdue metrication might help. I am sure major industries were consulted and gave their nod provided they had a vital input. Did anybody in government ask the people what they want? Not that I know, they simply presented them with the fact that metric measurements will be the preferred system in America. No campaigns to explain why, what the gains and losses are, nothing at all, just get on with it.
Not a very democratic way to go about such a major change. No wonder many people were cheesed off.
Of course most of the world changed to metric by decree, but at a time when voters had little influence on anything. Maybe this was the only good thing that came out of those bad times.
Today, most European political parties put matters they consider important and worth implementing to voters well before and at election time. Industry and businesses are consulted to gauge their view on whatever it is parties seek a mandate for. If elected on whatever issue, they have a mandate to implement anything campaigned for. Now industry and business are invited to contribute to its implementation. While their input will be noted and accommodated if possible, it is the elected government that has the final say on time frame, fiscal relief for incurred costs and so on.
Your country does pretty well the same to a point. I still remember Hillary Clinton trying to introduce universal medical care and failing dismally. Why, because you had an unelected trade organisation (doctors) spending millions on slanted advertising to safeguard their lucrative business. Where was the government’s massive counter campaign to point this out to people barely able to afford the high health insurance premiums? Nowhere, as far as I can remember.

Re: Utopia? October 18 2005, 1:14 PM
JS
There are many choices, but the consumer decides by his preferences which succeed in which die. I can assure you I believe that is MUCH better solution than a few ill-chosen sizes and types picked by government mandate. The USSR used to have that kind of economy. Look how successful that was. Maybe not every consumer is a rocket scientist but compared to a government bureaucrat, they are pretty damn smart.

metre
I am not sure whether this is addressed to me or Daniel, but I give it a whirl. At no time do I advocate Bureaucrats to decree what sizes of anything should produced and sold. Maybe, I put it wrongly. What I meant by government seting binding guidelines is pruducts should not be sold in idiotic prepacked metric quantities like 112 g, 2.67 kg and so on. Manufacturers can sell any quantity they like provided it is in proper metric quantities.
As to yesteryears USSR economy. That was much more drastic and can't be compared to common sense measurement quantities. And please, toothpaste is not the central point of my argument, implementation is.

Re: Utopia? October 18 2005, 1:39 AM
Sounds good in theory, but not seen in practice. The US lacks any laws requiring products to be sold only in particular sizes, yet the type of ripoff that metre describes is not seen. Yet another example of pro-metrics trying to imagine problems that don't really exist.

metre
You must live in a fool’s paradise if you think companies do not knowingly make comparisons for customers difficult, especially in a country where business dictates how things are done. Let me remind you of the contentious US nutrition labels. Metric hating food producers adopted metric nutrition labels only because few Americans understand grams. Why, because they do not want people to know how much sugar salt and other harmful ingredients their product contains per serving. Serving? another obfuscation of a relative simple matter. Why not like the rest of world per 100 g intake, easy, clear and simple.

Re: Utopia? October 17 2005, 3:40 PM

KB
But I've had a look at your other posts.

metre
American government policies do not endear it to many in this world, especially its present ones.

I was refering to the "facts" bit, not the American thing. But come to think of it....

"Metric hating food producers "

Is this guy for real?

<<Let me remind you of the contentious US nutrition labels. Metric hating food producers adopted metric nutrition labels only because few Americans understand grams. Why, because they do not want people to know how much sugar salt and other harmful ingredients their product contains per serving. Serving? another obfuscation of a relative simple matter. Why not like the rest of world per 100 g intake, easy, clear and simple.
>>

The metric nutrition info is required by law. A "serving size" statement can be given in Customary too, but the exact amount that the nutrition analysis applies to must be given in grams.

I hardly ever eat exactly 100 g of something. 100 g of salt would kill me, and 100 g of orange juice would leave me thirsty. "Serving sizes" may not be perfect, but I consider them better than standardized 100 g servings. It is easy to estimate (in my view) whether the amount I eat is 1.0, 1.5, or even 2.0 "servings." To me, that is much easier than 100 g of orange juice, ok, I'm drinking ~240 mL, now, what's the density of orange juice? Maybe a little more than water, so is that ~240 g, 250 g??

Maybe it is just what we are each used to, and we each prefer whichever that is. But the US "serving size" seems generally reasonable to me, although specific (and stupid) exceptions can be found.

The lack of attention on the part of many consumers to packaging sizes is no excuse for allowing traders a free hand to decide how they describe their products in terms of unit pricing and quantity.

It's an important principle of fair trade that proper standars are maintined and uniformly so. There is plenty of evidence to show that traders will hood-wink the consumer given half a chance. The longer we allow/tolerate muliple units of measurement the longer they will continue to exploit it.

<<
Manufacturers can sell any quantity they like provided it is in proper metric quantities.
>>


"You can have any colour you want as long as it's black."

Toothpaste tubes are standardized, but by volume. The two popular sizes in the US are the 100 mL and the 150 mL size. The consumer isn't aware of these rounded metric sizes, just their mass in non-rounded grams and ounces. The masses vary between brands depending on how full they stuff the tubes.

Interesting point about the toothpastes... where did you get this information?

I've been to Canada and Mexico and they have the same tube sizes as we do, but they label theirs in rounded millilitres. I've seen both the 100 mL and 150 mL as the most prominent.

Re: Utopia? October 18 2005, 3:13 PM
KB
I was refering to the "facts" bit, not the American thing. But come to think of it...."Metric hating food producers "Is this guy for real?

metre
You are obviously not that well informed; so let me spell it out why I used that phrase.
The EU set a deadline in 1990 for all imported US goods to be labelled in metric units after 2000. US food producers did nothing till 2000 then asked for an extension till 2010. We are almost halfway through this extension and FMI the food producers Food Marketing and lobbying Institute has done nothing yet to advise the US government that the Fair Packaging and Labelling Act (FPLA) should be amended to accommodate the EU request.
Contrast that with FMI's eagerness to adopt metric nutrition labels that few Americans understand on products sold in the US. You do not have to be cynical to see where that outfit is coming from. Hope that explains that seemingly harsh remark.
As to facts, which ones, please enlighten me?

Re: Utopia? October 18 2005, 5:05 PM

SJ
The metric nutrition info is required by law. A "serving size" statement can be given in Customary too, but the exact amount that the nutrition analysis applies to must be given in grams.I hardly ever eat exactly 100 g of something. 100 g of salt would kill me, and 100 g of orange juice would leave me thirsty. "Serving sizes" may not be perfect, but I consider them better than standardized 100 g servings. It is easy to estimate (in my view) whether the amount I eat is 1.0, 1.5, or even 2.0 "servings." To me, that is much easier than 100 g of orange juice, ok, I'm drinking ~240 mL, now, what's the density of orange juice? Maybe a little more than water, so is that ~240 g, 250 g??Maybe it is just what we are each used to, and we each prefer whichever that is. But the US "serving size" seems generally reasonable to me, although specific (and stupid) exceptions can be found.

metre
I am a bit thrown, wherever did you see a packet, tin, or bottle spoilt with 100 g of salt? Most retail food in tins, bottles and packets comes with salt in mg.
If you buy a tin, or packet of whatever, it gives you its weight say 500 g. Let’s assume it contains 11.2 g of fat per 100 g, you know exactly how many grams of fat, salt, sugar you eat in 200, 300, or whatever grams. The same applies to all other ingredients. Judging quarters, halves, thirds of a tin, bottle, packet, bag is very easy. If you drink from a 500 ml, or litre bottle, the same applies. No need to work out the density of anything since the values are given per 100 ml. To make that simple process difficult, food producers know that using odd quantities, or ounces, deters most people from working out how much unhealthy stuff they eat. This is another good reason why consumers, not producers, should have the right through government, to insist on proper metric quantities.
If 1 serving is 62 g, the process becomes cumbersome and even more so if you mix it with ounces. For liquids one serving is 200 ml, dead easy.

Re: Utopia? October 18 2005, 7:42 PM
Bud
"You can have any colour you want as long as it's black."

metre
This, read together with my answer to John should answer your ill informed remark.

To make that simple process difficult, food producers know that using odd quantities, or ounces, deters most people from working out how much unhealthy stuff they eat. This is another good reason why consumers, not producers, should have the right through government, to insist on proper metric quantities.

What really suprises me is that Americans and Brits are quite happy that their governments consulted industry and business prior to metrication, but never extended that courtesy to voters. I would have thought that this shows a blatant disregard for the democratic process.

<<As to facts, which ones, please enlighten me? >>

That's what I've been saying to myself when I've looked at some of your posts here ;-)

Sorry if this sounds cynical, but can someone else be right?

Re: Utopia? October 19 2005, 2:17 PM


<<As to facts, which ones, please enlighten me? >>

That's what I've been saying to myself when I've looked at some of your posts here ;-)

Sorry if this sounds cynical, but can someone else be right?


metre
No good hinting, examples please.

I'm not giving examples - what I'm saying is that many of the old posts I've been looking at appear to be opinionated at best - most are very low on facts.

I haven't trudgingly gone through loads of posts just fleetingly skimming some. Didn't I see one that said something about Irish being made redundant or something?

To be honest there are too many to start commenting - I could crash the network!

All meant mainly in fun, of course. This is just a public forum, after all!

If you buy a box of salt in the US (typically 1 lb), the nutritional information is given for 1/4 teaspoon (1.5 g). The only thing relevant in the nutritional info is the 590 mg of sodium. To me, that is more useful than knowing how much sodium is in 100 g of salt, printed on a box of salt, but opinions vary. Admittedly, while "dual," we are more Customary than metric, and the Customary serving size is "rounder." That could be fixed as we go more metric.

"Serving size" is NOT completely arbitrary in the US. While I admit I don't understand the process, there is a way of deciding it from Federal guidelines, and like commodities have like serving sizes across producers. Particularly for commodity products, because of the guidelines, it is the same across different producers. For "unusual" products, or things when one or more "pieces" is a serving size (crackers, cookies, etc), there may be minor difficulties. But producers are NOT free to "mislead at will."

The serving size will be explained in both Customary and SI measure as well as the number of servings per container. The nutritional info is then given for one serving. The USDA database lists that info for standard serving sizes and also per 100 g. So if someone really wants it per 100 g, it is available in the US.

<<
I've been to Canada and Mexico and they have the same tube sizes as we do, but they label theirs in rounded millilitres. I've seen both the 100 mL and 150 mL as the most prominent.
>>
How do you know that they are the same tube sizes? Just because they look the same doesn't mean they are really the same size.


<<
The EU set a deadline in 1990 for all imported US goods to be labelled in metric units after 2000.
>>
All imported US goods are already labelled in metric units. Let me rephrase: The EU set a deadline in 1990 for all imported US goods to be NOT labelled in American units.


<<
FMI the food producers Food Marketing and lobbying Institute has done nothing yet to advise the US government that the Fair Packaging and Labelling Act (FPLA) should be amended to accommodate the EU request.
>>
Explain to me why an industry group would ask the governmnent to impose additional costs on its industry? (The fact that it is at the request of a foreign government, rather than the people, is besides the point).


<<
Contrast that with FMI's eagerness to adopt metric nutrition labels that few Americans understand on products sold in the US.
>>
We've gone through this before... so I'm not going to bother.



<<
If you buy a tin, or packet of whatever, it gives you its weight say 500 g. Let’s assume it contains 11.2 g of fat per 100 g, you know exactly how many grams of fat, salt, sugar you eat in 200, 300, or whatever grams.
>>
But in order to do that, you need to know how many grams you have eaten. Let's say it was a packet of cookies, and the fat was labelled in grams per 5 cookies. Then you wouldn't need to weigh what you have eaten.


<<
What really suprises me is that Americans and Brits are quite happy that their governments consulted industry and business prior to metrication, but never extended that courtesy to voters. I would have thought that this shows a blatant disregard for the democratic process.
>>
You should be glad... because if it weren't for big international corporations, there wouldn't even be as much pressure on the government to change to metric as there is right now. Voters could care less; they don't want their tax money spent on satisfying EU directives.

Bud, John - let me clarify. Metre is being misleading.

Most packs of foodstuff's in the UK have a label on the side mentioning the list of nutrients in more than one format.

One will be "by the 100g" - i.e. as a %age (some save 3.5 oz as well), and the other will be "per serving size" or "pack size". Usually the pack will say (on prepared food) the number of portions (ie "1" for one person "2" for two people etc) so its easy to work out the portion values.

Also the ingredients are listed too - but not by measure, just by name. The list shows the most used ingredient first and the least used last (so you can check for the amount of water, salt, suger, etc).

Sorry to inject a bit of reality but I just thought this "nutritional contents" rubbish had gone on a bit too long.

Hope that helps.

Re: Utopia? October 19 2005, 4:50 PM
JS
If you buy a box of salt in the US (typically 1 lb), the nutritional information is given for 1/4 teaspoon (1.5 g). The only thing relevant in the nutritional info is the 590 mg of sodium. To me, that is more useful than knowing how much sodium is in 100 g of salt, printed on a box of salt, but opinions vary. .

metre
Seems to be a case of crossed wires. Nobody, I think worries about nutritional values on a packet of salt, why would they? People are only interested in quantities of sodium on nutrition labels because the higher the number the more they take in. The reason why I consider per 100 g easier is that nearly everyone is capable of judging ¼ ½ ¾ of solids, or liquids in containers they take, or eat it from. More to the point is that nutritional labels give shoppers the opportunity to compare nutritional amounts of whatever with like products. So it would not really matter what one prefers.

JS
But producers are NOT free to "mislead at will.

metre
We talk of two different things again . Few manufacturers would be stupid enough to deceive customers outright in today’s regulated world. Their aim is to make legally required information more difficult to decipher than necessary. Using a measuring system few people understand is one, using mixed measurements another, cluttering labels falls also in this category. Come to think of it, if America accepts metric only labels for exports to the EU, I am sure nutrition labels must also conform to European standards. Maybe this indicates that FMI has no intention to change its labelling .

Re: Utopia? October 19 2005, 8:56 PM
metre
The EU set a deadline in 1990 for all imported US goods to be labelled in metric(((())) units after 2000.

Bud
All imported US goods are already labelled in metric units. Let me rephrase: The EU set a deadline in 1990 for all imported US goods to be NOT labelled in American units.

metre
An oversight, missed the “only” after units.

Bud
Explain to me why an industry group would ask the governmnent to impose additional costs on its industry? (The fact that it is at the request of a foreign government, rather than the people, is besides the point).

metre.
I have explained it to you before and willingly do it again. Europeans asked Americans to accept their proposal to phase out USC units over 10 years on items exported to the EU. The Americans agreed. After 9 years they came back and said sorry we need more time. Another 10 years are granted. Halfway through this period it looks like nothing will happen again. So why did Americans agree in the first place to consider it if their intention was and is never to accommodate their trading partner? To put it bluntly, who wants to deal with a devious trading partner like this? Common decency demands either to say sorry we can’t oblige, or agree to it. What happened so far is pure prevarication. Ever heard of TRUST in negotiations?

Re: Utopia? October 20 2005, 10:57 AM

KB
Most packs of foodstuff's in the UK have a label on the side mentioning the list of nutrients in more than one format.

metre
You obviously think YOU know it all! Before accusing somebody of misleading other posters it would well behove you to enquire first what nutrition label I cited from. Since you do not know, refrain in future from making unsubstantiated accusations.

Sorry - I didn't realise you were talking about the packet you had in your hand as you were typing in your post.

To be honest it's unlikely that other posters will know what packet was in your hand and therefore I was explaining to what I believe are American posters the labels one might see in a "shop" or "store" and not specifically "in metre's hand during the time he was posting".

This place can be odd sometimes.

<<
Europeans asked Americans to accept their proposal to phase out USC units over 10 years on items exported to the EU. The Americans agreed.
>>

When did Americans agree? Did Congress actually pass a resolution agreeing, or was it an informal statement? I have never heard anything of this, so please enlighten me.

Re: Utopia? October 20 2005, 3:17 PM

KB
Sorry - I didn't realise you were talking about the packet you had in your hand as you were typing in your post.

metre
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
And next time please don't feel obliged to explain on my behalf what YOU think. thanks.

Don't explain what I think?

Have you looked up the meaning of "discussion"?

Re: Utopia? October 21 2005, 1:36 AM



Bud
When did Americans agree? Did Congress actually pass a resolution agreeing, or was it an informal statement? I have never heard anything of this, so please enlighten me.


metre
Well if you want to be finicky, why did the Americans talk with the Europeans and agreed on a 10 year time table to implement the EU request? And why did they ask for an extension? No matter how you turn it, the Yanks are only playing for time. They simply haven't got the guts to say no. Seems an echo of their promise almost 60 years ago that all aspects of aviation shall be metricated.

Re: Utopia? October 21 2005, 1:25 PM

KB
'Don't explain what I think?'

metre
Never quote anything out of context.

In regards to what?

"Seems an echo of their promise almost 60 years ago that all aspects of aviation shall be metricated"

Where did you get that from ?
On the side of a packet?

<<
Well if you want to be finicky, why did the Americans talk with the Europeans and agreed on a 10 year time table to implement the EU request? And why did they ask for an extension? No matter how you turn it, the Yanks are only playing for time. They simply haven't got the guts to say no. Seems an echo of their promise almost 60 years ago that all aspects of aviation shall be metricated.
>>

Tell me specifically when they agreed, and tell me whether it was by way of a law, treaty, executive agreement, or some other manner. I am not aware of America ever agreeing to this, so if you have information, I would like to know about it. They may have agreed to metrication in principle, but I don't think they ever agreed to any timetable to remove customary unit labelling requirements. If you know otherwise, please tell us.

Tell me specifically when they agreed, and tell me whether it was by way of a law, treaty, executive agreement, or some other manner. I am not aware of America ever agreeing to this, so if you have information, I would like to know about it. They may have agreed to metrication in principle, but I don't think they ever agreed to any timetable to remove customary unit labelling requirements. If you know otherwise, please tell us.

metre
What is so difficult to understand here. Let me make it very simple for you. Government representatives of 2 countries agree that something should happen after 10 years. If nothing had been agreed on what did the Americans extend after 10 years? To have another cup of tea together? The agreement must have been that America uses metric only labels after 10 years with an escape clause allowing an extension. Agreeing to something in principle requires no time table.

Re: Utopia? October 21 2005, 2:55 PM


KB
Where did you get that from ?
On the side of a packet?

metre
Are you related to that stimpy guy? You could be his double, judging by the content of your posts.

metre, I need specifics. When and where did they agree? What was the treaty called? You need to provide some evidence that this agreement actually happened, because I have never heard of it.

EC 80/181 is the EU rule requiring metric only labelling. The americans said they needed 10 years to comply, so the EU extended the directive until 2010. Of course in 2010 the US will claim again they need another 10 years. This time no extension will be granted.

Re: Utopia? October 23 2005, 12:13 AM

Bud
metre, I need specifics. When and where did they agree? What was the treaty called? You need to provide some evidence that this agreement actually happened, because I have never heard of it.


metre
Don't blame me, this is about as specific as they get. Judging by that defiant attitude they never had, as I rightly presumed, any intention to comply with the EU request. Admitting this would certainly be more honourable than hiding behind meaningless extensions?



US Department of State

14. The EU requires "metric-only" labeling on packaging. The U.S. has a deferral on the requirement until 2010, but this remains a problem for the long-term. The EU is the only country that prohibits non-metric labeling. Non-EU manufacturers should be given the flexibility to use dual labeling as long as they’re meeting the metric requirement.

metre
Note, NON EU MANUFACTURERS, Who would those be, Liberia, Honduras, Cuba.... what a weak excuse just avoid mentioning the odd country out in this world still using cumbersome measurements that nobody needs nor wants.

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/41958.htm

Department of State
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/41958.htm
Excerpt
Export of EU standards is a big problem. The precautionary principle is the basis for the EU promoting its standards outside Europe. The UN is becoming the primary forum for the export of EU standards. Precaution is even showing up at the state level in the U.S., where NGOs are trying to establish precaution as a U.S. standard. The U.S. and EU differ greatly; the U.S. focuses on risk management, while the EU focuses on precaution. The EU also defines "risk assessment" and "sustainable development" differently than does the U.S. The U.S. and EU need to emphasize these issues do not only relate to Transatlantic standards, but to standards in developing countries.

OUR END GOAL SHOULD BE TO HAVE U.S. STANDARDS BECOME THE WORRLDS STANDARDS, TO PLACE U.S. STANDARD AT THE FOREFRONT.

U.S. standards often don’t see the light of day due to EU influence within ISO and other international fora. The EU defines transparency differently than the U.S. EU takes comments after the decision has been made; this is not transparency. The EU is trying to change risk assessment with the precautionary principle as it relates to sustainable development. The EU is pushing through UNEP Biosafety programs to encourage developing countries to adopt the EU sustainable development model. U.S. must communicate with and involve like-minded countries to counter this trend.

metre
Capitalisation above is mine.
Came across this fascinating and revealing paper searching for an agreement about metric only labelling.
This must have been written in the 1960s when the description THE UGLY AMERICAN became popular world wide. Let's just say their audacity is breathtaking to expect a 98% metric world to adopt US standards.
Don't get caught with his play on risk assessment versus precautionary principle and sustainable developement. The difference in a nutshell is this. Europeans apply a precautious approach to climate change, hence the Kyoto Agreement, while some Americans make risk assessments and do nothing, or something in the near future, (Carbon sequestration). That approach can be pretty well applied to everything else. Metrication is a good example. Adopted in 1866 it has barely progressed in 139 years.
One of the most stupid and arrogant statements I have ever heard fits nicely into this category. At a White House press conference a journalist asked the simple and pertinent question: will hurricane Katrina change the president's attitude to climate change? Will he sign the Kyoto treaty? Breathtakingly stupid came the answer: "America's way of life is not negotiable". Take it from there. My apology to decent and concerned Yanks.

<<U.S. standards often don’t see the light of day due to EU influence within ISO and other international fora. . . .

This must have been written in the 1960s when the description THE UGLY AMERICAN became popular world wide. Let's just say their audacity is breathtaking to expect a 98% metric world to adopt US standards.
>>

Our standards must not be seeing the light of day. A few comments which I have documented in prior threads and don't wish to find all the links again.

Most modern ANSI standards are SI. Any professional organization can develop standards in the US. However, for it to be an ANSI standard, the organization must be certified as ANSI-standards-developing-body (by ANSI). One of the requirements is a metric policy for the organization as a whole, and the standards are generally required to be either metric-only or dual.

There are other finer points on which ANSI and ISO standards disagree. Years ago, I was involved in both standard bodies for sound level meters. The only important different was that Americans preferred random incidence microphones (more accurate in reverberent rooms), Europeans preferred perpendicular incident microphones (more accurate in outdoor "gunsight" measurements). Both certainly used sound pressure of 20 uPa as the reference level for decibels, agreed on A and C weighting, etc.

metre, I was merely saying that the idea that the US or the UK (and other countries) had agreed to metric aviation was about as likely as your post about the stuff on the side of packets and how you side-stepped that one because it was starting to sound daft to yourself - that's all.

Similarly you appear to have started posting nasty stuff about Americans because you can't answer Bud's question - because Bud is an American you probabyt think that's a valid way to close that argument.

It's just an observation, that's all.

Re: Utopia? October 23 2005, 6:07 PM
JS
<<U.S. standards often don’t see the light of day due to EU influence within ISO and other international fora. . . .

metre
Since 156 countries decide ISO standards it is somewhat disingenuous to blame the EU alone for suppressing US standards.

JS
Our standards must not be seeing the light of day. A few comments which I have documented in prior threads and don't wish to find all the links again.

metre
I am not sure what this refers to?

JS
Most modern ANSI standards are SI. Any professional organization can develop standards in the US. However, for it to be an ANSI standard, the organization must be certified as ANSI-standards-developing-body (by ANSI). One of the requirements is a metric policy for the organization as a whole, and the standards are generally required to be either metric-only or dual.

metre
My thoughts, for what they are worth on ISO’s inception, run something like this. After 1945 both Britain and America scrambled to usurp as many international regulatory bodies, as possible. The idea behind it was to influence/control developments in many fields. Two of them come to mind. America took the international regulation of air traffic away from France and England created ISO to replace DIN norms in Europe. America succeeded to force its archaic units on to a metric world while Britain managed to smuggle imperial units in metric disguise into ISO. For whatever reason, Europe is lucky that your country left Britain to deal with standardisation. Otherwise all standards would be in USC, or in a woeful mix. Europe, together with most metric countries would have had no choice, but to create its own standard bureau.

JS
There are other finer points on which ANSI and ISO standards disagree. Years ago, I was involved in both standard bodies for sound level meters. The only important different was that Americans preferred random incidence microphones (more accurate in reverberent rooms), Europeans preferred perpendicular incident microphones (more accurate in outdoor "gunsight" measurements). Both certainly used sound pressure of 20 uPa as the reference level for decibels, agreed on A and C weighting, etc.

metre
I would not for a moment maintain that European standards are always the best, but neither are America’s. Like in everything else politics decides whose ideas prevail in ISO. America’s measurement pariah status guarantees Europe’s dominance in that body for some time yet.

<<JS
Our standards must not be seeing the light of day. A few comments which I have documented in prior threads and don't wish to find all the links again.

metre
I am not sure what this refers to?
>>

You seemed to be making the assumption that US standards ALL use USC. They do not, at least ANSI standards generally do not.

There ARE some non-ANSI standards which are almost entirely USC like the API standards. It is one professional organization that appears to not even have a metric policy. There are certainly other examples, like building trades.

The points where ISO and ANSI standards differ are much more subtle than english/metric measurement.

Following an excerpt of ISO's work.

This section of the book celebrates the standard-setting achievements of ISO's Technical Committees. Vince Grey, former Chairman and Secretary of ISO/TC 104, tells the success story of the standardization of freight containers.

"There are certain standards that are essential to describe a freight container, and it wasn't until the Moscow meeting in 1967 that someone could really go out in the manufacturing field and say: "I want an ISO container." Anyhow, once that last peg was put in place...the industry just took off !... The whole committee had the satisfaction of a job well done. We achieved our wildest dreams!"


http://www.containex.com/en/iso_shipping_container_20.aspx

metre
An interesting example.
It says 20’ ISO norm container and then states all measurement in awkward metric numbers. This is not metric this is imperialising metric. No wonder the metric world closes ranks against this creeping imperialisation.
While I am aware that norms have nothing to do with measurement units used, I still maintain that it gives imperial units status in disguise.

Re: Utopia? October 24 2005, 12:06 PM

KB
metre, I was merely saying that the idea that the US or the UK (and other countries) had agreed to metric aviation was about as likely as your post about the stuff on the side of packets and how you side-stepped that one because it was starting to sound daft to yourself - that's all.

Similarly you appear to have started posting nasty stuff about Americans because you can't answer Bud's question - because Bud is an American you probabyt think that's a valid way to close that argument.

It's just an observation, that's all.

metre
You are defenitely in chimpy's league.

Chimpy?

I'm confused, in fact, I have no clue what you are going on about.

We're pariahs and completely ignored in ISO standard setting? But ISO chose all Imperial dimensions for an "ISO standard container", then expressed them in metric?

The "nominal" 20' and 40' are pretty nominal. The engineering dimensions, either interior or exterior are not very "round" in either metric or Imperial. There may be some other dimensions related to stacking on a ship that are round, but the containers are smaller by tolerances. I'm really not sure what the governing "system" dimensions are. The 20' and 49' are so "nominal" they could be equally well described as 6 m and 12 m.

I tried to find exact ISO requirements, with min/max tolerances, but I wasn't successful. To the degree manufacturers can hold tighter tolerances than ISO, there is some advantage (from customer viewpoints) if dimensions approach "max" on the intside, "min" on the outside, but mee strength. So individual offerings don;t necessarily quote ISO specs, but are "specward" of them.

Re: Utopia? October 24 2005, 2:30 PM

JS
I'm confused, in fact, I have no clue what you are going on about.

We're pariahs and completely ignored in ISO standard setting? But ISO chose all Imperial dimensions for an "ISO standard container", then expressed them in metric?

metre
No, I am aware that America has probably more input into ISO standards than most countries. What I meant is when it comes to the choice of standards, Europeans as the writer of the paper I posted so bitterly complains, carry the day. And that, I presume is because Europeans and most metric countries, have a different approach and speak the same measurement language.

JS
The "nominal" 20' and 40' are pretty nominal. The engineering dimensions, either interior or exterior are not very "round" in either metric or Imperial. There may be some other dimensions related to stacking on a ship that are round, but the containers are smaller by tolerances. I'm really not sure what the governing "system" dimensions are. The 20' and 49' are so "nominal" they could be equally well described as 6 m and 12 m.

metre
But they aren't designated 6 and 12 m.
Instead they have to contend with useless metric quantities and I am sure this irks Europeans, as do barrels of oil and pounds of uranium ounces of gold and the list goes on. The European attitutude is essentially a reflection of America's USC intransigence.

JS
The points where ISO and ANSI standards differ are much more subtle than english/metric measurement

metre
I do say as much in my post about containers.

Strangley enough you can swap over "USC" (or imperial) and "metric" and make the same argument.

They work both ways but solve nothing.

There is also a risk of boredom here.

Bunch of arse.

Ever heard of evolution, mate?

If we hadn't moved on from imperial measurements we'd still be swinging from trees.

20 ft trees?

"Ever heard of evolution, mate? If we hadn't moved on from imperial measurements we'd still be swinging from trees".

REPLY: Evolution never happened. If you think it did, provide some proof - or at leat evidence of some kind

Don't tell me... the world was created in seven days by a supernatural being!

LOL