Imperialist ‘victory’ or checkout muddle?
Today’s (9/5/2007) news media have widely reported a story that imperial measures may continue to be displayed alongside metric ones in this country for an indefinite period.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6637587.stm) This is being trumpeted by some as a “monumental victory”. It is ironic that in the very year when we are celebrating the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery, clinging on to our imperial past is so widely embraced. However, this news just means ‘business as usual’ in the UK. Weighing machines will not be changed back to imperial. We shall continue to see some unnecessarily complex price labels and, for those who stick to using imperial, a muddle at the supermarket checkout.
What most reports fail to state is that at the greengrocer, butcher and supermarket still legally need to weigh and measure using metric. So if your trader uses imperial scales, they have not been tested recently. But what is the value of labelling in imperial? If you read a price in imperial you cannot check if you have been charged correctly without using a calculator.
Take this real example of a supermarket advert for bananas above. A customer reading “34p/lb” may have the impression that it is a lower price compared with the shop down the road offering bananas a price of say 69p/kg. The equivalent price is actually 74p/kg.
At the checkout, however, the customer cannot check whether he or she has been charged correctly. The weighing machine uses kilograms and the receipt shows the kilogram price 74p/kg.
Common sense would suggest that the most sensible thing would be to display the price using the units of the weighing machine and receipt. Adding the imperial supplementary price adds nothing and can be confusing. Seven years after to changing to metric for loose goods, we have all had enough time to change over.
What a pity that some of our politicians and news media despise consumer protection and see a victory in perpetuating an obsolete unit. It is high time that the British Government - without any pressure from the EU - finishes off the metric conversion in the interests of the consumer.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:26
Maybe this could be a blessing in disguise? Now any future laws to get rid of imperial units cannot be blamed on “Brussels”. All we need is a British government to make its mind up and finish the job that was started in 1965. I’m not holding my breath though.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:30
Of all the issues of importance in the world I’m astonished that there are people dedicating their lives trying to impose a standardised system on an uninterested public. Eventually imperial measurements will die out and until that time are you really saying that there is significant confusion about measurements? To the point of making a measurement illegal!? I commend those who have fought to spare us from yet another criminalisation, that’s something worth fighting for. To campaign to criminalise a measurement would seem laughable were it not reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:21
Duncan seems to be suffering from a “romantic” view of systems of measurements and I’d like to say a few things in response.
First, Duncan complains about the idea of imposing a standardised system - but that’s just what we need. I am British but metric educated. In my late 30’s I can’t tell you how many feet or yards there are in a mile, lbs to a stone or oz to a lb… nor can I visualise many of those units, yet I’m forced to drive my car and buy goods in units I don’t understand. Whats more, I am then forced to convert from one system to the other to work out the fuel consumption of my car (either in mpg or km/100l) and am constantly baffled by height and weight limits on road signs which are in imperial when my car manual gives the sizes in metric! The point of standardisation is so you and I don’t have to keep converting… how would you like it if your local supermarket would only speak to it’s customers in French or German?
Second Duncan says about “the point of making a measurement illegal”. In some ways I can agree with this. It would be illegal for my local pub to serve me 1/2 litre of beer if I were to ask for it and my milkman cannot deliver my milk in anything other than pints. I also cannot get a speedo on my British registered car with clear metric units shown for when I drive abroad because British law bans metric-only speedos. It’s also illegal to put metres and kilometres on road signs! So, if it’s so daft to ban the use of certain measurements will he join my fight to the right to buy a 30cm pizza and 500ml of lager?
By comparing those of us who want metric to be used to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot just shows how little Duncan understands the issues. We as consumers have a right to know how goods in the shops are measured, how much fuel our cars use and wether it’s safe to drive them on any particular road. Using two different systems depending on the whim of the shopkeeper or the signmaker is at best arrogant and at worst dangerous. My car is 2 metres wide and 1.8 metres high… I want to see signs on narrow roads and low bridges that give me information I can understand, not feet and inches that I have to convert then hope that I’m right!
This is indeed sad news for those of us hoping for a step closer to sanity on January 1st 2010… but at least as Rick says at least we can distance the campaign from Brussels now!
May 9th, 2007 at 13:44
While it is disappointing that the imperialists appear to have staged a propaganda coup, and the media have largely swallowed their distorted version of events, I don’t think we need be too concerned about the underlying reality.
What appears to have happened is that one of the 27 Commissioners has commented to a committee of the European Parliament that he intends to make a proposal to the full Commission. If approved, this will then have to go either to a special committee or to the Council of Ministers and then to the European Parliament. It could be amended at any stage.
The question of revising the Units of Measurement Directive has recently been out to consultation and the Commission has yet to publish its response.
It appears that Mr Verheugen has responded to lobbying from US and EU exporters who want to avoid having to have separate labelling of packages for the two markets. This alleged problem could be easily solved by an exemption just for imports from and exports to the USA. It should be possible to limit the extension of supplementary indications to this category only and to phase them out for all other purposes (as currently planned).
There is much water to flow under the bridge yet!
May 9th, 2007 at 19:23
I am deeply disappointed by this development. However, I read about a free trade treaty between the EU and the USA and so the cancellation of the EU-directive seems to be inevitable.
It seems that metric countries, which are often accused of being
‘totalitarian’ in this respect by Imperialists, are more liberal than the UK. A UK-registered car is banned from having a metric-only speedometer. I wonder how draconian the fine for this heinous offence is. In mainland Europe, however, I am allowed to have a car with miles per hour only on the speedometer if I wish so (I do not!), I am only expected to respect the speed limit, for instance driving 30 mph in a 50 km/h zone, and that’s all.
May 9th, 2007 at 19:51
Correct me if I’m wrong, but dont the imperial systems of the UK and US differ? In that case how exactly does maintaning these mesurements help us trade with the US? Coversions will still need to be done in some cases and products will still be mislabled?
May 9th, 2007 at 22:38
Correct me if I’m wrong, but dont the imperial systems of the UK and US differ? In that case how exactly does maintaning these mesurements help us trade with the US? Coversions will still need to be done in some cases and products will still be mislabled?
Facile!
One hundredweight is either 112 lb in the UK and 100lb in the USA, subsequently, One ton is either 2240lb in the UK and 2000lb in the USA
One pint is either 20 fl oz in the UK and 16 fl oz in the USA, subsequently One quart is 40 fl oz in the UK and 32 fl oz in the USA and one gallon is 160 fl oz in the UK and 128 fl oz in the USA
May 9th, 2007 at 23:34
I noticed in many of the news stories today that some traders commented they were looking forward to going back to selling in imperial measurements.
Correct me if I’m wrong but from what I understand the European Commission has only backtracked on the rules, which would have come into force across the EU on the 1 Jan 2010. As regards the laws concerning weights and measures over here in the UK, nothing has changed and they still apply. Therefore traders cannot simply go back to using using imperial measurements as some suggested they’d like to, as this would still be illegal.
May 10th, 2007 at 08:18
You are quite right, there are some differences between the UK imperial system and US customary systems of measure. My understanding of the differences is as follows:
Miles, yards, feet, inches, acres – identical both sides of the Atlantic
Pounds, ounces – identical both sides of the Atlantic
Stones (14 lbs) – Used in the UK , by but not in the US.
Hundredweight – 112 lbs in the UK; 100 lbs in the US.
Ton – 2240 lbs in the UK, 2000 lbs in the US
Fluid ounce – The UK fl oz is 28.41 mL; the US fl oz is 29.57 mL
Pint - The UK pint (568 mL) is 20 UK fl oz; the US pint (471 mL) is 16 US fl oz.
Quart – 2 pints (same definition, different values either side of the Atlantic)
Gallon - 4 quarts (same definition, different values either side of the Atlantic)
May 12th, 2007 at 11:54
In response to Duncan’s remarks about criminalising units of measurement.
This needs to be placed in perspective. It has always been a criminal offence to trade in units “not allowed for trade” It sounds draconian but there are good reasons for it.
In order to ensure fairness in trade and to protect consumers, goods which are sold and priced according to measured quantities have to be subject to legal controls on the equipment used for measuring and the units to which they are calibrated. Without it, both the seller and the buyer would have no referee in the event of dispute, and unscrupulous traders would be able to cheat the customer.
To that end the units allowed for trade have to have a legal definition and the measuring devices used by traders have to be of an approved type to ensure accuracy and reliablity. Hence the units have to be contained in a legally allowed list.
All civilised countries do this, including the US, and the principle on which this type of law is based goes back as far as Magna-Carta.
Although all the hype in the media over the last 6-7 years might lead one to believe that criminalising units for trade is a modern phenomenon imposed on us by Brussels, the true history of British attempts to go metric and the debate over legal compulsion for metric only goes back to the mid nineteeth century, well before the EC/EU was a glint in anyones eye. See this article for the full story
http://www.metric.org.uk/press/humble.htm
The trouble with the British case is that we tried to change over on a purely voluntary basis in the belief that imperial would die out and metric would assert itself as the sole unit in trade. Hence for a long time (since about 1897) both metric and imperial have been allowed for trade purposes (although there are many imperial units that have been abolished along the way with no one noticing). It wasn’t until 1995 when imperial was abolished for packaged goods (with no fuss) and then 2000 for loose goods (when all the fuss started) leaving metric only as the prime unit for trade.
Outside the retail sector there are no criminal offences for the use of non-metric. Units of measurement tend to be controlled by regulatory requirements instead, e.g. in the public services or for health and safety rules. There is a legal document known as the Units of Measurement Regulations (which is a carbon copy of the UofM EU Directive) but it doesn’t give rise to any offences for non-compliance.
Arguably to ensure a single system of units in all aspects of trade, legal compulsion should be extended to advertising and product description, which may be controversial but in principle is equally justifiable in terms of fairness in trade and consumer protection (the Trade Description Act already criminalises misleading advertising etc)
The moral of the story is that the purely voluntary approach to adopting metric has failed. No counry in the world has managed to do it without compulsion and succeeded. Imperial wont die a natural death unless people are positively encouraged to use the metric alternative and are shown the benefits of doing so.
May 13th, 2007 at 15:08
A single legally enforceable system of weights and measures is essential for fair trade. In a global market place we need to use the global system of weights and measures. Operating two incompatible systems side-by-side indefinitely is nonsense.
I continue to be baffled as to why trading standards and consumer organisations are not campaigning more actively to end the two-systems muddle that we have had in this country for so long. How can it possibly benefit the consumer for some shops to sell bananas by the pound, some by the kilo, and some by using two sets of prices?
Why have we been waiting for the EU to tell us how and when to sort out this mess anyway? Isn’t it obvious to our own national authorities that, in our best interests, there is an issue here that needs to be addressed?
I hear a lot about “the right to choose”, when imperial and metric measures are discussed. If some traders choose to use imperial measures, as a customer, I have no say in this “choice”. On the contrary, I am denied the freedom to be able to compare prices transparently and choose the trader with the best value.
The fact that regulations are being flouted when traders choose not to show standard metric unit prices, makes me wonder whether there might be other regulations that they are also choosing to ignore, such as those affecting the accuracy of their weighing equipment, or health and safety issues.
May 13th, 2007 at 16:18
To Robin Paice:
Robin,
I live in the US. Since the 1980s, the largest US export has been jobs and manufacturing. The US is now the world’s largest importer and as a result the largest debtor nation. We have all seen examples of US products once made in FFU (Fred Flintstone Units) in the US now made in metric in elsewhere, especially China. Computers were all FFU at one time and today are all metric, thanks to them being made in Asia.
Milliards of euros of products are imported into the US and not one of those is a special FFU version of a metric product sold elsewhere. So, please enlighten me as to why products destined for the US need to be non-metric. The company I work for buys sub-components made everywhere in the world. They are metric. If China can sell the US metric parts, then why can’t the UK? Or is this just another one of those unproven excuses?
I know this isn’t your statement but one of many coming from the opposition. See this article as an example of a consumer product now made in metric and sold in the US.
http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg28441.html
Maybe there is a label issue. But don’t different countries require different labels for different reasons anyway? What about nutrition information or language or other information that is required in some countries but not others. Doesn’t that mean that labels have to be different anyway? So why is the metric issue all of a sudden a call to arms?
May 13th, 2007 at 16:34
I was under the impression that the only reason the EU directive is opposed by some EU businesses is because it conflicts with the US FPLA law requiring dual units.
I would hope that the EU rejects Verheugen’s proposal unless there is an agreement from the US to amend the FPLA and allow metric only labels on US destined products. Then there will be no need for a EU directive and no need for special exemption for products from or destined for the US.
But to be realistic, the opposition on both sides of the Atlantic would never agree to the amendment to the FPLA. Everyone knows that such a move would really make any EU directive a moot point. Amending the FPLA would flood the US with metric products labeled only in metric .
Where the opposition claimed that the EU law was anti-business, then the present FPLA is even more anti-business. The EU Commission and Parliament, if they ever come to debate the issue should never drop the provisions of the directive until the US amends the FPLA and any other restrictive legislation prohibiting metric only usage.
I’m surprised that Verheugen didn’t make amending the FPLA as a condition of putting a proposal forward to continue to allow supplemental units. Why should the EU be forced to back down instead of both sides offering a compromise?
Even if the US doesn’t want domestic companies to have metric only they could allow an exception for imports to be metric only.
The UKMA can show some initiative and do its best to assure the EU directive will never be amended unless the US allows metric only.
May 13th, 2007 at 16:37
Mark is correct and that truth needs to get out. The opposition isn’t concerned with the truth. They are only concerned with bringing back FFU.
Maybe those who are fined for not using approved scales can have the BWMA and Martyrs pay their fines.
May 14th, 2007 at 16:09
Martin Vlietstra Says:
“You are quite right, there are some differences between the UK imperial system and US customary systems of measure
…
Miles, yards, feet, inches, acres – identical both sides of the Atlantic
…”
Martin, you didn’t mention that in the US there are two different feet. One which is identical to the “foot” as used in the UK; and the “U.S. Survey foot” which is defined as 1200/3937 metres, and is I think 0.0002% larger than the international foot.
Luckily the Ordinance Survey in the UK have been surveying in metres for decades.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:30
Martin Ward wrote : “How can it possibly benefit the consumer for some shops to sell bananas by the pound, some by the kilo, and some by using two sets of prices?”
There’s also the relatively new unit - the “2lb”. Much favoured by some greengrocers and butchers.
This unit is not being used for customers who still want prices by the pound. It is being used blatantly for the purpose of deception. Unscrupulous traders know that customers equate 1 kg as being roughly equivalent to 2 lb. Thus a price of £1.99 per 2lb will appear to be better value than, for example, a price of £2.10 per kg.
Under existing regulations, these pseudo-units (and any others that traders might devise) are allowed as “supplementary indications”. This practice can only be stopped by legislation ending the option to display prices in dual units.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:32
Stephen Davies wrote
>
… and £1.99 per 2 lb appears to be even better value than £2.19 per kg (which is the exact conversion, rounded to the nearest penny).
May 15th, 2007 at 22:10
The price per 2 lb may be illegal. Has someone bothered to inquire. I thought pricing had to be either per kilogram, per 100 g or per gram. Pricing per pound, per ounce, per 2 pound or whatever is not considered supplemental indicators.
If I mark a package as 1 kg (2.2046 lb), the 2.2046 is a supplemental indicator. A price per 1 kg with 2.2046 lb in parenthesis indicating an equivalent to 1 kg is stretching the intent of the law but would be acceptable.
But a price per pound or per 2 pounds or whatever should be illegal and not accepted. Pricing a product per pound or 2 lb, even if it is weighed on a metric scale, is not the same as conducting the sale in kilograms.
Someone needs to nip this in the bud.
May 20th, 2007 at 16:07
Alex Bailey has done an excellent job of making my point for me: like him, I was educated and brought up understanding the metric system (which, unlike the complicated imperial system, is easy-peasy for anybody to learn), and then was thrust into the supposedly grown-up world where signs and labels with funny imperial units (which I did not, and still largely do not understand) were commonplace. The UK has taken far too long to change from one system to the other.
With metric, we have one measurement for a given concept, and a standard and common set of multiples (kilo, milli, centi, etc). The metre for length, area and volume, the litre for fluid volume, the kilogram for weight, the watt for power, and so on. This mere handful of units is easy to learn and use - and they all work the same way, with powers of 10 between multiples.
Nobody taking a detached view, when comparing the two systems, would think nowadays of learning the imperial system, with literally dozens of measurements to have to learn and as many randomly different conversion factors between them. Why should I have to learn and remember how many ozzes make a pound when I go shopping? It makes things unnecessarily complicated. How close is 13 oz to a pound? I don’t know. That’s why we have kilograms on price labels, and that’s why 95% of the world uses them as well.
A kilo of produce weighs the same as a one litre bottle of water or juice, it’s an easy thing to remember and use.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:17
Supplementary indications certainly do cause confusion for shoppers. This weekend Sainsbury’s had a “half price” promotion on bacon. There were 2 prices displayed on the ticket, one of which was approximately half of the other. I thought it looked a good deal and was just about to take a few packs when I realised that one price was per kg (already halved) and the other was the same price expressed per pound. In fact the bacon was a top-price line being sold off at the same price as cheaper bacon; but the supplementary indication was causing confusion rather than clarity - as it always will.
June 1st, 2007 at 03:17
Dave Brown Said:
Supplementary indications certainly do cause confusion for shoppers.
Dave, that is the whole idea. The more confused you can make a shopper, the more likely he is going to make the wrong choice and buy something he doesn’t really want or need at an inflated price.
Business loves confusion. That is why you don’t see them doing much to end the mess. Don’t you think it would have made the transition smoother if the shops educated the customer on buying in metric? It wasn’t in their interest. They sell more when people don’t know what is going on around them. Keep the customer confused….keep him buying.
September 17th, 2007 at 04:34
The hard questions first, eh?
Worst case is to mix the two measurement systems in the same economy and culture, which is the current situation in UK. When the building trade was forced to struggle with metric measurement it was absolutely fine. But when the suits started to be inconvenienced, it was another story. When that greengrocer was being prosecuted and given a criminal record for not selling his bananas in kilograms (metric measure), I was being compelled to adjust calibration on the speedo of Japanese grey import cars from km/h to mph (Imperial measure). I realise Britain’s a stupid country, but …
Anyone planning to emigrate will be faced with switching to metric as part of a steep learning curve. Unless you select the US, Liberia or Myanmar (Burma) as your host country, because they are the only countries still officially using Imperial, although of course the US uses a modified version (USCS). Technical reports by US authors seem to think it’s trendy and/or European to use metric measurement for some data. I’ve given up reading this type of report. Conversion is tedious and further they often make simple mistakes, which degrades credibility.
November 6th, 2008 at 23:02
The current situation is ridiculous. Take my present situation - I bought 24 photo frames on the net which are advertised as 8 x 10 inches / 20 x 25 cms. By the way, the two measurements are not the same. They are several millimetres different. So then I had my photos enlarged to the same size. Well, now that i have the photos and the frames together, the photos are several millimetres too big all the way round so I will have to get a guillotine and spend a couple of hours getting the photos to the perfect size. Why can’t we just go fully metric?
Another example, we buy our petrol/diesel in litres and then my car displays usage in miles per gallon so I spend hours worrying about how many miles per litre I am doing. Why can’t we just be metric?
This is madness.
Alex Irwin.