“Metric martyrs” - what was the fuss about?
On Wednesday, 9 May, the air waves and the prints were full of fanciful stories about Brussels caving in and allowing Britain to carry on using lbs, oz and other imperial units. The so-called “metric martyrs” * (Oh no, not them again!) declared a victory for their campaign. So what has really happened?
It appears that at a recent Committee meeting of the European Parliament, one of the 27 Commissioners, Günter Verheugen, indicated that, in response to lobbying from European and American exporters, he intended to propose to fellow Commissioners that the current authorisation of “supplementary indications” alongside metric units should be extended beyond its current deadline of 2009. If the Commission approves this proposal it will then have to go through the decision-making machinery of the EU before the current Units of Measurement Directive can be revised.
This has been claimed by a spokesman for the “metric martyrs” as a victory for their campaign to be allowed to weigh and price in lbs and oz. The reality is quite different.
No difference
If Mr Verheugen’s proposal were eventually to be agreed as reported (big “if”), it would make absolutely no difference to the current situation. Traders will still have to price and weigh goods at the point of sale in metric units, with the option of an accompanying supplementary indication, which must be no more prominent than the legal metric unit. Most shops and supermarkets now comply with the law, and many have given up on showing lbs, oz, pints, sq yds, etc. Only a handful of recalcitrant market traders and small shopkeepers still hold out against the law, and their numbers are dwindling.
A special exemption for US imports and exports?
However, this is by no means the end of the story. The reason given for authorising supplementary indications is that the USA requires dual labelling (metric and “US customary” - not the same as imperial, by the way) on packaged goods. Thus, if the EU insists on metric-only labelling, exporters will require separate packaging for the two markets. It is difficult to see why putting an extra sticky label on a package is a significant business cost, but even if it is, there is a simple solution which need not affect the great majority of transactions within the EU. All that is required to solve the exporters’ alleged problem is a special exemption for imports of packaged goods from and exports to the USA. This is exactly what was proposed by the UK Metric Association (UKMA) in its submission to the EU consultation on revising the Directive, which can be seen at
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/depot_anwers/c-non-gov-organis/R205.pdf
It remains to be seen whether the Commission will accept the obvious logic and common sense of our proposal.
Pints and miles
Contrary to many media reports, Mr Verheugen’s proposal would not affect the status of the pint for draught beer and cider and for milk in returnable containers, nor would it affect the mile, yard, foot and inch for road signs, distance and speed measurement. The UK Government will still be required to name a date for phasing out these measures. As far as road signs are concerned, UKMA has proposed that a new deadline of 2014 should be set.
* Footnote:
The suggestion that the original so-called “metric martyrs” have been exonerated is absurd. They were properly prosecuted and convicted under the current law for using illegal scales and other offences, and all their appeals to various UK and European (!) courts were dismissed. Even if the Directive were to be amended as suggested, they would still be breaking the law. They were guilty as charged and remain so.
May 11th, 2007 at 07:37
Right on!
May 11th, 2007 at 12:04
The press is bound by a code of practice which states that:
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
…
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
If readers feel that they have been misled by the press over this issue, they are free to complain to the Press Complaints Commission - see http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
May 11th, 2007 at 22:40
Good points about the law in the UK not actually changing at all in regards to traders still having to price and sell in metric for most things. But the misinformation published recently by the media will no doubt encourage deceitful traders to continue breaking the law, and local councils are afraid to act as they do not want the bad publicity that occurred in regards to the Sunderland situation.
In regards to the “metric martyrs”, surely they should be called the “imperial martyrs”? The term martyr is used to describe a person who dies for their beliefs, such as a Christian martyr who died for his Christian beliefs, i.e. he was a Christian and was killed for being one.
So surely a metric martyr is one who was killed for using metric?
May 13th, 2007 at 15:53
The UKMA needs to be as forceful and active as the BWMA and the Martyrs. It does seem the media became very excited over the issue and published quotes by Martyr and BWMA sources but nothing from UKMA or government agencies who enforce the law.
I’m sure there are those who believe the media and have already changed their scales back. A visit by a TSO with a hefty fine should be in order for those that have. There also has to be enforcement of those that don’t. Colin Hunt was found cheating using imperial and fined 9000 pounds. Now he claims he will only sell in metric from now on. See link: http://gometric.us/jforum/posts/list/28.page
I’m sure that most who sell in imperial are cheating. Their scales are not stamped and most likely are in need of calibration, which isn’t happening due to the fact that they are not legal. Thus it makes it easy for them to be off and a change of cheating easy to apply. A good citizen can take a walk through different markets, note those businesses that still sell illegally in imperial (no metric scales and no metric adverts) and call the local TSO. Keep calling until action is taken.
I’m also surprised that the UKMA has done nothing in the past to stop the actions of ARM who find no resistance to their removal of metric signs. Even in areas where the signs were dual, they removed the metric. Why aren’t they being opposed?
In both situations, the UKMA should consider some type of legal action, including lawsuits against the media for false reports, the BWMA and Martyrs for false statements and ARM for amending signs illegally.
How much longer is the UKMA going to allow the opposition to claim victory?
May 14th, 2007 at 02:38
It seems the virulent anti-metric Christopher Booker of the Telegraph has come to realize something the other anti-metrics haven’t (at least not yet). That is that nothing changes if the EU directive is modified to allow indefinite supplemental units.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nbook13.xml
Excerpt:
Christopher Booker’s notebook
By Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 2007-05-12 23:36 BST
Metric ‘victory’ turns out to be short measure
Anyone might have thought from last week’s headlines that our “metric martyrs” had won a historic victory, and that the British people are once again free to buy and sell goods in pounds and ounces. Alas, all those front-page stories trumpeting a “reprieve for pounds and ounces” woefully missed the point.
Nothing has changed the EU-based laws under which the late Steve Thoburn, our first “metric martyr”, was found guilty of selling “a pound of bananas” from his Sunderland market stall. Short of Britain leaving the EU, for our shopkeepers to sell their wares in anything but kilograms and metres will remain illegal for evermore.
The rest of the article is sour grapes.
I do have a question though on the use of supplemental units. Does the use of supplemental units only mean imperial or USC, or can ancient Chinese units be included as supplemental?
Do supplemental units have to be correct? Can a trader legally interpret a request for a pound to mean 500 g? If a unit is not legal for trade and it is used as a supplemental unit does it have to follow prescribed definitions?
May 20th, 2007 at 02:06
I am no expert, but it is my understanding that a ’supplementary indication’ is a measurement of quantity in any unit other those listed in directive 80/181/EEC. These are all metric, so ancient Chinese units (in use until recently) would qualify as SIs.
W&M law does not expect SIs to be precise. However, other laws relating to consumer protection might apply. There is theoretically no limit to the number of units in which SIs may be expressed, so definition would be difficult.
May 20th, 2007 at 10:55
The “victory” which is rightly claimed by BWMA and others arises from the fact that before this U-turn by the EU it would have been illegal to display the price of goods in British units, alongside metric, from 2010. Now such display will continue to be legal and, in the case of loose goods such as vegetables, customers will continue to be able to state their requirements in British units. (I have yet to hear any customer use metric units in a greengrocer’s.)
May 20th, 2007 at 11:04
MIS-MEASURING TRADING STANDARDS
I reckon that Günter Verheugen, European Trade Commissioner, has out-flanked the metric-sceptics, not caved in, about the continued use of pounds, miles, pints, etc. How can they now claim that an alien system is imposed on us?
It seems self-evident that consumer protection sustains health and well-being, reinforces fair markets, and facilitates business competitiveness especially in consumer sectors.
One can only marvel at Simon Heffer’s ability to work so many targets into his rants (eg Stone me!….Telegraph, 10 May 2007 ) including: successive British governments, Napoleon (who banned metric in 1812 as “a mischief”), the EU, the United States and their alleged preference for their own eccentric system , the BBC, George Orwell, and Geoffrey Howe. Phew! He goes on like a latter-day flame-haired Victoria about ‘Our people’s passionate attachment’….to pounds, miles, pints, etc and their ‘visceral hatred of any other measurement system’. He boasts of a ‘gratifyingly vast response on our (DT) online message boards’. But a cursory glance at them shows a widespread yawn and ‘Oh! Do give it a rest…’
My plea is for the centimetre. It is an inoffensive little piece, campaigned for by Anne, Countess Atlee, as a thoroughly useful, natural unit. But maybe UKMA fears it is a not a priority – shame.
John Hyde
Fordingbridge
Editorial note: This is not strictly relevant to this thread but just for clarification, UKMA is NOT opposed to the use of centimetres in the right circumstances. Centimetres are well established in e.g. clothing sizes and are endorsed by the British Standards Institution. However, it is undesirable to use cm on technical drawings where they could be confused with mm.
May 20th, 2007 at 23:01
Richard Need Says:
The “victory” which is rightly claimed by BWMA and others arises from the fact that before this U-turn by the EU……
It seems Richard is terribly misinformed. There has been no U-turn by the EU, nor has there been any change in British law. It is still illegal and will always be illegal to sell in imperial units.
One Commissioner has stated he will bring the issue up to the Commission before the end of the year. The issue being the allowed continuation of supplemental units. But there is no guarantee the other Commissioners will accept Verheugen’s recommendation or the EU Parliament will amend the metrication directive or even that British law will be amended.
It would be in the interest of the EU not to change one iota of the directive unless the US amends the FPLA to allow metric only labelled products in the US. Even if supplemental units were permitted past 2010, the sale must still be in metric units. What part of this doesn’t the BWMA understand?
Just because some ignorant people don’t ask for metric amounts, that is their problem If they get cheated, that is their fault too. They are capable of learning and if they refuse to, then let them get cheated.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:59
Daniel Jackson has plainly misunderstood. I did not suggest that there has been any change in the requirement for retailers to deliver goods only in metric amounts. So let me explain again:
Before this latest proposal it would have been illegal, from 2010, for a retailer to display the price of his goods in imperial units as well as in legal metric units. Any retailer who indicated the price of his tomatoes “per lb” as well as “per kilo” would be breaking the law. The reported proposal would remove that restriction.
This would mean that a customer can still ask for a pound of tomatoes and be able to tell at once how much that pound is going to cost. That the retailer has to convert the pound into grams is no concern of the customer; as long as he gets his pound at the price indicated he is happy.
Editor’s comment: However, this does not make the case for displaying supplementary indications. The customer can still ask for a pound of tomatoes, and the trader will weigh out 454 g and quote a price, obviously based on the unit price per kg. There is no need for two prices. In practice, people rarely ask for either pounds or kilos. They select the quantity of tomatoes they want and take them to the checkout to be weighed and priced in metric.
May 23rd, 2007 at 04:01
One problem with Richard Need’s response is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that a clerk running the scale isn’t going to give the customer exactly 454 g. He/she may give more or less. It is up to the customer, based on the scale reading, to accept or reject the amount weighed out. A clerk may chose to weigh out 500 g and ask the customer if this is acceptable and if the customer accepts, then the sale is legal.
Products like tomatoes or bananas don’t weigh out exactly in rounded pounds and the customer may have a hard time figuring out, even by a pound price how much more it will cost for being so many grams over or under.
It is always to the shops advantage to weigh out a larger portion and thus move more stock and rely on the customer accepting the amount, thinking through their own ignorance, that the got what they asked for.
May 23rd, 2007 at 04:11
Can someone answer this question for me?
Is pricing in non-SI units legal under the provisions of supplemental indicators? I would think that a supplemental indicator is a second description of an amount in a different unit then the primary unit. Pricing in other units does not qualify as a supplemental indicator.
49 p/100 g would be a price in metric only. A price of 49 p/100 g (3.53 oz) would be in my opinion an acceptable application of a supplemental indicator as it is showing the non-metric equivalent of 100 g. To give a unit price per ounce or pound is not really a proper application of a supplemental unit.
Am I correct in this? If not, why not?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:58
Daniel Jackson might like to try out his tortuous reasoning on any of my local greengrocers who, all day long, dish out pounds of this and that to their customers, young and old. The greengrocer is happy to do so and the customers are perfectly content.
In any case (though I won’t dwell on this) there never was an EC directive saying that dual labelling (or whatever the bureaucrats call it) would be illegal from 2010. There is one that says that dual labelling will be permitted until 2010, but since this was never preceded by one saying that it would not be permitted after that date it is a meaningless thing to say. Any TSO who tried to prosecute would find no law to base his case on.
Editorial comment : A factual correction: The relevant part of Article 1 of Directive 80/181/EEC reads:
Chapter I of the Annex lists exclusively SI or SI-compatible units. Chapter II lists the four exemptions (pint, mile etc for limited purposes). Note the word “must” (our emphasis)
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:26
An example of how supplementary indications work in practice where goods are weighed in front of the customer is “Bananas 55 p/kg (25 p/lb)”.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:25
Richard Need’s first comment tells it all about supplementary indications. “(I have yet to hear any customer use metric units in a greengrocer’s.)” The reason for that is that greengrocers have always displayed a price per pound so that their customers have not had to change their thinking. Only when the supplimentary indications are consigned to the dustbin will the public start to work with the metric system and realise how easy it is. Until then we’re doomed to conversion tables and calculators, while the rest of the world (bar the Americans) just gets on and measures things without all this fuss.
May 27th, 2007 at 02:59
Richard Need Said:
“Daniel Jackson might like to try out his tortuous reasoning on any of my local greengrocers who, all day long, dish out pounds of this and that to their customers, young and old. The greengrocer is happy to do so and the customers are perfectly content.”
Of course Richard isn’t telling us the whole story. The customer may ask for pounds, but there is no guarantee they are getting what they asked for. The greengrocer must take that request and convert it into gram and then weigh out his/her interpretation of the customers request.
What both the customer and the greengrocer sees on the scale is the amount in grams, not pounds. The greengrocer asks the customer if the amount is OK. The customer who may pretend not to know grams or tries not to look at the scale display as well as not wanting to appear ignorant will agree that the amount is correct.
The greengrocer then wraps the produce hands it to the customer, the customer pays the amount requested and walks away thinking they got what they asked for. However, if the greengrocer is unscrupulous, he/she will take advantage of the customer who asks for pounds. He/she can easily convert high so as to sell more knowing very few customers will notice the difference.
Now everyone is happy. The customer is happy because he/she still could speak old fashioned gibberish and get something for it. The greengrocer is happy because he/she could sell more produce and the Trading Standards is happy because the sale took place in grams.
May 27th, 2007 at 03:05
Dave Brown Says:
The reason for that is that greengrocers have always displayed a price per pound so that their customers have not had to change their thinking.
For the few shops that may still dual price, one has to wonder not only how up-to-date the dual prices are, but how much extra the shop must charge for the privilege of having out-dated units used. The extra time to do calculations, extra materials such as ink and paper, etc. all come at a cost. Someone has to pay for it and it isn’t the greengrocer. Unless he makes up the difference by selling someone 500 g of produce when they asked for 450 g.
May 28th, 2007 at 09:14
Re: Richard Need
The reason you may not hear metric units in your greengrocer’s (Although what about the many customers who shop at different times from yourself? I’m sure you dont stand and survey all day long!) is because for many people of working age, local shops are not open at times that are able to make use of them (much as we may want to). 80% of shopping nowadays is done in supermarkets, which are open early and very late (if not even 24 hours a day), where there is no need to state what you want, in either metric or imperial, and simply select your product the shelves.
In fact, many supermarkets have evidently decided that it is not worth going to the hassle of calculating and showing an additional imperial price on labels, and as far as I am aware, nobody seems bothered by this in the slightest.
It is very likely that the majority of customers in local shops, those who are able to access them during the day, will be of the older generation (and bear in mind that by now two generations have been taught metric at school). This older generation will have coped admirably with the overnight change to decimal currency (and I am sure very few would want to go back), and they are doing themselves a great disfavour if they think that they cannot learn how large a kilogram is just as quickly!
May 28th, 2007 at 10:04
My experience concurs with David’s in that I have seen a gradual tendency in supermarkets away from dual pricing. When it is present imperial tends to be less prominent than metric.
I only hope that we do not see a revival of the practices we saw in the early part of this decade where the price marking rules were being flouted with metric less conspicuous or even missing altogether.
I’ve also noticed that Tesco have cooled off recently from their proclaimed imperial friendly regime.
One thing I am certain of is that traders do not engage imperial for the benefit of customers. Rather they exploit the obscurity of dual measure to their own advantage. Small shops have always had trouble competing with supermarkets on price so they favour price/lb which looks cheaper than price/kg.
The proclaimed victory for the “British people” is no such thing, it is a victory for the trader to the detriment of the consumer.
It’s time for Britain to put its house in order and recognised the ancient and valid principle that all trade should be conducted using a single set of units. Anything else is dishonest, and all those politicians and campaigners fighting to preserve dual measures pretending to stick up for the right to choose should be ashamed of themselves.
May 28th, 2007 at 13:19
Below is a letter to the BWMA. It was posted on the BWMA forum. Note that it only says that Verheugen only announced his intention to come forward with a proposal and that this issue of the US restriction against metric only needs to be discussed.
If the US does not allow metric only, then there is no reason the EU should amend the directive to allow supplemental units.
Dear Mr Gardner,
The directive on units of measurement is currently subject to a
review.
This began as a first step with a broad public consultation, which
has recently ended. The contributions to this consultation are
publicly available on the Europa website and the Commission Services
are further analysing the results.
However, some first conclusions can be drawn. There is an
overwhelming support for the continued use of the so called
supplementary indications, in particular when it comes to the trade
aspects with the United States, where imperial measures are still
widely used.
Vice President Verheugen has therefore announced his intention to
come forward with a proposal to the College to continue the use of
the supplementary indications for an indefinite term.
Discussion will however also need to continue with the US on the non-
tarriff barriers which currently prevent the sale of goods labelled
only in metric by European exporters on the US market.
Best regards,
Daniel Hanekuyk, DG Enterprise and Industry
May 28th, 2007 at 14:10
Phil Hall said:
Small shops have always had trouble competing with supermarkets on price so they favour price/lb which looks cheaper than price/kg.
Then why not price per 100 g? Wouldn’t this appear even cheaper to pound pricing and sort of force customers to ask for and make purchases in increments of 100 g? If a customer requested 500 g instead of 450 g, then wouldn’t the shop make a bigger sale?
Since most people most likely buy 500 g or less, then there is no need to price per kilogram or per pound. 100 g would be perfect.
Is the prefix hecto allowed? Can a price per 100 g be stated as a price per hectogram (hg)? A price of p/hg would take up less space on a label then a price of p/100 g.
May 28th, 2007 at 21:04
The letter posted by Daniel Hanekyuk presents an opportunity to UKMA. It would be in the best interest of the UK if there are conditions attached to the amending of the EU metrication directive.
First and foremost, the US must be made to repeal any laws requiring dual units and any laws restricting the use of metric units only.
Second, as far as the UK is concerned, the repealing of the directive must be tied in with the following requirements by the UK:
1.) A repealing of any laws forbidding metric only. It must be allowed to sell any type of goods or service, including alcoholic beverages, milk, etc. that are now only allowed in pints. As well as the allowance of metric signs on the roads. They must be repealed at once.
2.) The UK must agree to set a reasonable date (within the next 5 years) to complete metrication.
UKMA must work with any EU governmental bodies to assure that these issues are brought up and agreed upon before any amendment to the directive is considered.
The EU directive is not needed if the above amendments are agreed to. Let’s work towards making the amending of the metrication directive a metric victory.
May 28th, 2007 at 21:13
Mr. Hanekuyk Can be reached by email at the following email address:
daniel.hanekuyk@cec.eu.int
http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/metro/wg8/members.htm
May 29th, 2007 at 14:58
It is quite misleading to say that non-metric units are required for trade with the USA. There are only 4 states in the USA where metric-only labelling is not permitted. They are:
• Alabama
• New York
• New Jersey
• Hawaii
Everywhere else in the USA, metric-only is acceptable.
May 31st, 2007 at 18:54
I am afraid that it is not true that “There are only 4 states in the USA where metric-only labelling is not permitted”. This only applies to goods that are not regulated at the federal level. In fact most foodstuffs and many household goods ARE regulated by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, which still insists on both metric and “US customary” marking
However, this still does not justify the EU authorising “supplementary indications” for all purposes. A derogation limited to imports and exports of packaged goods from and to the USA would solve the alleged problem of exporters.
This is what UKMA has argued to the Commission - and to anyone else who will listen.
May 31st, 2007 at 21:37
The following appeared on the Trading Standards Institute website for a few days:
“Metrication: clarification
“Clearly the media focus and misreporting of the possible infinite extension of the derogation permitting supplementary indications has not been helpful to businesses, consumers, Trading Standards or local authorities more broadly.
“[See TSI’s response to the Commission Staff Working Document on Units of Measurement, Directive 80/181/EEC, February 2007 ; other responses can be viewed on the EU’s Europa website.]
“TSI is clear that this speculative position has been prematurely and disproportionately represented and we seek here to clarify the position for the purposes of business compliance and enforcement by TSI professionals.
“The Unit of Measurement Directive (80/181/EEC) is currently subject to a derogation permitting the use of supplementary (imperial) indications up to the year end 2009. [See ‘Units of Measurement Directive - Supplementary Indications’ on the DTI’s website.]
“That derogation remains intact unless otherwise expired or amended. The Commission Working Document, referred to above, sought views on this and other requirements of the Directive. This consultation closed at the end of February 2007. The UK Government, via DTI, expressed its full support for the continued use of supplementary indications after December 2009 without limit of time. TSI supported this position in its consultation response, as did LACORS and others.
“On 2nd May, Commissioner Verheugen is reported to have told the Commission Industry, Research and Energy Committee that, having reviewed the consultation responses, he is minded to propose the use of supplementary indications indefinitely, permitting imperial measures to continue to be used as a supplementary indication to metric measures.
There has been particular reference to the benefits of such an approach to trade with the USA and globally, and support has come from the USA for continuance of imperial measures.
“The formal Commission report on the outcome of the consultation exercise and its proposals is expected in due course, but no specific timescale has been announced. We have an indicative position by way of Commissioner Verheugen’s reported comments and we can seemingly expect infinite extension of the current derogations, including those measures domestic to the UK such as the mile, pint for beer, etc.
“The immediate position regarding units of measurement is clear, i.e. NO CHANGE, and the future position is likely to be equally clear, i.e. NO CHANGE, and without limit of time.
“Some parts of the media and certain parties have adopted a jingoistic stance to the Commissioner’s reported comments and taken the opportunity to direct website and public comment to local authorities, and occasionally towards Trading Standards. TSI will be adopting a measured response and monitoring developments by way of informing any considered further TSI action.
“Ron Gainsford,
TSI Chief Executive.
11th May 2007″
June 1st, 2007 at 03:21
Dave Brown Said:
It is quite misleading to say that non-metric units are required for trade with the USA. There are only 4 states in the USA where metric-only labelling is not permitted. They are:
• Alabama
• New York
• New Jersey
• Hawaii
Everywhere else in the USA, metric-only is acceptable.
This is not true. The first three states are the only ones that have not yet adopted the UPLR that will allow metric only in certain areas. Hawaii recently adopted the UPLR, so they are off the list.
For metric only to be legal everywhere, the FPLA needs to be amended.
June 1st, 2007 at 03:34
Robin Paice Said:
However, this still does not justify the EU authorising “supplementary indications” for all purposes. A derogation limited to imports and exports of packaged goods from and to the USA would solve the alleged problem of exporters.
There doesn’t need to a derogation limited to imports and exports of packaged goods from and to the USA. what there needs to be is an amendment to the FPLA to allow metric only in the US. An amendment to the FPLA will make the issue of supplemental units meaningless.
EU and US companies won’t need to clutter their labels needlessly with dual unit clutter. Work to get the FPLA amended as a condition to amending the EU directive and don’t even consider special derogation’s for the US.
June 4th, 2007 at 22:02
Good News! New Jersey has adopted the UPLR. Only two states, New York and Alabama are left.
http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg28726.html
June 5th, 2007 at 03:32
Are the British starting to tire of the martyr’s campaign? Interesting article:
http://newsbiscuit.com/article/local-butchers-stance-on-imperial-measures-becoming-a-bit-tiresome-116
Local grocer’s stance on imperial measures becoming ‘a bit tiresome’
Buckinghamshire residents have voiced their concern about the long campaign by local grocer Bob Cardwell to ‘Save the Pounds and Ounces.’ Minutes of a parish meeting have revealed, that though the village was in initially in favour of Mr Cardwell’s stance, they are now, ten years on, finding it a ‘bit of a pain in the arse.’
Despite a ruling earlier this month that British shops can continue to sell in pounds and ounces indefinitely, Bob still seems determined to continue his ‘metric martyr’ campaign. Pensioner Mary Greene, a customer of Bob’s for thirty years, said ‘Maybe he’s actually just a racist, I was in one week and he just started going on about the French, something about there being no horses in his pies. Frankly, who gives a shit? He ranted about Brussels so long that I missed the start of ‘Deal or no Deal’, maybe I’ll just go to the supermarket next time, not a word of English between them at the meat counter but at least they’re quick.’
Ironically Bob was prosecuted last month by the weights and measures dept of the Office of Fair Trading. He had originally denied the charge until the prosecution said that he had put 85 grams of dried fruit under his scale to short weigh customers, Bob exploded with rage in the dock and screamed ‘it was three ounces.’
Another long-standing customer commented ‘Who cares? I pretty much know that a pound is just about half a kilo, so what! It was the same with decimalisation; after a few weeks you just get used to it. Even a combination of the two systems isn’t that difficult. My husband’s a builder and regularly buys 3 metres of 2×2. There are bigger things to worry about for God’s sake.’
Bob was defiant and vowed to continue his protest he claimed that ‘if you give these French bastards an inch they’ll take 1609.3 metres.’
Posted: 4 June 2007 by Team Biscuit
June 6th, 2007 at 08:53
In response to Daniel Jackson’s celebration of New Jersey’s adoption of the UPLR, I thought I should obtain clarification from the US Metrication Association. This confirms that the NJ decision only relates to products that are NOT regulated at the federal level. This was the exchange of correspondence:
Dear Robin,
Thanks for writing. Yes, the FPLA’s dual-labeling requirement still holds for
products subject to it.Products subject to the FPLA must still be dual-labeled
in New Jersey. The “excitement” we feel over here now has to do
with the steady success of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation
(UPLR), a model regulation authored by the National Council of Weights and
Measures in 1952, and amended in 1999 to include a provision for the optional
use of metric units only, on products not regulated by the FPLA, and thus
subject only to state regulation. Since that amendment was added to UPLR, 48 of
the 50 state governments have adopted it, New Jersey being the latest. New York
and Alabama are the only states left that have apparently not yet approved the
UPLR option. The NIST Laws and Metric Group tells me that all of the non-state
U.S. territories (the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Puerto Rico, and American Samoa) have also adopted the metric-only UPLR option,
so once New York and Alabama decide in favor of it, then every location in the
U.S. will allow it on that basis.
The U.S. Constitution empowers only the Congress to establish the standard of
measurement for the country. It is not a state function. The UPLR is not going
to be “the thing” that will make this country go metric. However, unanimity
among the states with regard to this particular labeling practice via the UPLR
will strengthen the argument for supporters of U.S. metrication to press the
case for the really important move: amending the FPLA to allow the metric-only
labeling option for the vast majority of products sold in the U.S. Once metric
units are able to stand alone legally on U.S. products, industry and public use
of SI will be accelerated considerably, and, I also believe (as you say),
progress on continued UK metrication will be given a major boost.
Please write back with more questions if any of this is unclear.
SI-incerely,
Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
Quoting Robin Paice
>> Dear Mr Trusten
>>
>> Can you please clarify this statement?
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg28726.html
>>
>> The announcement suggests that the state of NJ will permit metric-only
>> labelling for all packaged products sold within the state. However, our
>> understanding is that the FPLA takes precedence over state law, and
>> therefore products that are regulated at the federal level (including
>> most foodstuffs and some household goods) must still be dual marked -
>> whatever the NJ authorities may have said. Have we got this right?
>>
>> This is of vital importance to the UK since US insistence on dual
>> marking is prejudicing our attempts to phase out imperial and
>> US-customary marking within the EU.
>>
>> Can you help?
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Robin Paice
>> Chairman UK Metric Association
June 7th, 2007 at 03:40
http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/fmicomments.pdf
The FMI (Food Marketing Institute) is an American lobbying group that has a big influence when it comes to metric only packaging. They are opposed to amending the FPLA to permit metric only labelling. The PDF file explains their views.
Personally I feel that if they keep the FPLA from being amended, then the EU metric only directive must also not be amended.
Robin, in your Letter to Paul, I never made such an assumption that adopting the UPLR made the use of metric only in New Jersey a signed deal. I may not have been clear, but I thought those who post here understood the difference between the FPLA and the UPLR.
I agree completely with what Paul said. I hope everything is clear now.
Robin, you also wrote:
“This is of vital importance to the UK since US insistence on dual
marking is prejudicing our attempts to phase out imperial and
US-customary marking within the EU.”
I would think this is the intent of the US. This is exactly what they don’t want to happen, that is to have FFU (Fred Flintstone Units) phased out. They want the EU to amend their directive to allow FFU forever but are resisting amending the FPLA to allow metric only labelling fearing that just allowing it will spell the demise of FFU that much faster.
June 10th, 2007 at 08:51
I have just read your website for the first time and and feel that I am attending the meeting of a cult religion. Many of you have seen the light and been saved, while the rest of us poor grockles are living in darkness…and are too ignorant to even know it.
We must be just waiting for further laws and prosecutions until that day when enlightenment dawns and we will stumble gratefully from the murky depths whispering ‘Thank You, Bless You’ to you - our rescuers.
Sadly it ain’t like that. By your own arguments, the imperial system should have withered and died years ago in favour of the intellectually superior metric. Much like Marx’s theoretical prediction about the death of capitalism in the 1850s. Well, Karl, we’re still waiting.
But imperial survives - because it as a convenient, practical and familiar system. Traders would not sell in pounds and ounces if there was an overwhelming demand for kilograms. (BTW - I think your implicit assumptions that anyone selling in imperial is a rogue, vagabond or cheat very offensive)
I was talking to a very intelligent young man yesterday. He is 18 and has been educated completely in metric. But he still describes hs height in feet and inches and his weight in stones and pounds. And he has no idea what the metric equivalents are.
Maybe, just maybe - when his grandchildren are growing up - there may be a case for converting completely to metric - as imperial will be extinct anyway. But until that day comes I suggest that you continue to stress the benefits that you perceive for the metric system, while removing the elements of compulsion, coercion and prosecution that you seem so keen on.
There is no more surefire way to annoy the general public than to adopt the ‘De Haut en Bas’ approach of intellectual superiority that is all-pervasive in your site. A great way to start a campaign to ‘Save the Pint’ is to threaten to ban it. Neil Herron and Steve Thoburn understood this to great effect and with great public support - even among some TSOs that I know.
Arrogant intellectual complacency will not win you the argument.
June 10th, 2007 at 14:37
A quick response to Steve Jones. The “laissez faire” or “free speech” argument is superficially attractive, but experience has shown that it results in no progress. Having launched the metric changeover in 1965, the Government in 1972 decided that the change should be voluntary and gradual and made little effort to explain or promote the metric system. That is why we are in the mess we are in.
This contrasts with the efficient way in which Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and indeed most Commonwealth countries made the change within about 10 years.
Without an element of compulsion (as far as official, legal and trade uses are concerned), completion of metrication will never happen. Anyway, weights and measures law has always been compulsory.
For a fuller explanation see http://www.ukma.org.uk/Campaign/index.htm
and the links from that webpage.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:58
Robin beautifully - and I suspect unconciously - illustrates my point about compulsion. ‘The general public are just too stupid to understand the benefits of xxxx . So we will make them use it by force because it will be good for them’. How many times has that argument been wheeled by every authoritarian in history?
June 12th, 2007 at 21:04
The Newsbiscuit article is a spoof - surely?
June 15th, 2007 at 05:58
Thanks for your comments Robin. I don’t think that we will ever agree because we come at this from completely different approaches ..interventionist vs libertarian.
But If you should ever be in Weybridge it would be fun to meet - and maybe share a pint (or even a half litre) and put the world to rights. Cheers
June 15th, 2007 at 14:18
Steve Jones, It really is not about interventionism and libertarianism. Having two, or more, measurement systems more about anarchy. Having a single measurement system is just a matter of good management. A level playing field. It’s not a political issue at all, just an issue of simplification and common sense. Metric gives us a common set of units that makes sense. Government’s only role is to ensure an orderly changeover to the new system by publicity, education and changing all laws that previously mandated imperial measurements. Our government just seems to have made a complete dogs breakfast of the whole thing and left us in the worst of both worlds.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:15
As for imperial surviving, it survives as an afterthought of metric. Old unit names, even after 200 plus years survive in many countries, but as slang terms for metric quantities. Go to France and Germany and ask for a “pound” of something and you get 500 g, weighed out as 500 g. does this mean imperial has survived or just old names used as slang?
This is the same in the UK. As for a pound of something and you get a metric amount. Too bad the UK doesn’t let the pound become 500 g and the pint 500 mL. It may perpetuate the use of the terms for a long time, but it should reduce the negative effects of the muddle.
It is also sort of funny that the FFU-ists love to point out the remnant use of old units. Pints of beer in pubs, some milk containers, miles on roads, etc. Everything else is metric. The goal of the UK must be to remove any obstacles to these last areas metricating.
There doesn’t have to be a compulsion to sell beer and milk in litres, but it shouldn’t be outlawed either. Even if the UK doesn’t plan to metricate road signs, there is no reason to ban the use of metric signage.
What is being done now to remove these anti-metric restrictions?
July 14th, 2007 at 20:18
I recently published the following on my website at at this location. (It’s not yet HTML formatted on my website so the prettier version is below.)
Here’s a refutation of the FMI comments against allowing metric-only labeling:
The comments can be found at: http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/fmicomments.pdf
Summary: A version of the FPLA which allows metric-only labels (and disallows US Customary-only labels) will not directly have an impact on packages sizes or prices. The arguments used to inflate the cost to the Food Marketing industry are mostly invalid.
Furthermore, nothing in the proposed FPLA changes deny retailers the option of placing supplementary size information on the shelf. Thus if a metric-only labelled product seems to be causing an issue with customers at a particular store, that store may print and place a shelf label stating “255 g (9 oz).”
- “The majority of consumers do not understand metric measurements. Moreover, consumers are not demanding that their food products be packaged and labeled using the metric system.”
= A large majority of customers don’t _care_ how things are labeled when it comes to comparison. Customers do care when it comes to including products in a recipe.
= Food packaged with metric units with an allowed optional alternative US Customary unit (no more prominent than the metric unit) would still allow customers to purchase enough flour, as an example, for a recipe. But I don’t typically buy sugar and flower by the amount on the label, I eyeball the size.
= People aren’t demanding it because they don’t care and usually don’t use the labels on the package. I, for example, use the Nutrition Information chart far more often than I use the package size label.
- “Value-comparison between similar products of various sizes may be difficult to determine for consumers if some manufacturers use the metric-only option and others use inch/pound.”
= True … if an either/or/both scenario is allowed. Requiring metric and optionally allowing US Customary solves this issue since everything will have (at least) metric units.
= Metric will make it _easier_ to compare sizes. Customers will just look for the metric label on the dual-labeled product. Two differently sized cans of beans labeled in grams can easily be punched into a calculator for the price
per gram. With US Customary conversion factors (lb, oz … but don’t confuse that conversion factor with gallons/pints/quarts/cups/_fluid_ ounces), the process of converting one unit to another becomes much more difficult.
- “International interpretations of metric requirements would likely result in package size changes.”
= This argument makes no sense. How would international interpretations of how to _label_ cause a company to think that the _size_ must be changed?
= Since all international companies use metric at home, why would using metric in the US suddenly cause them confusion?
- “Changes in package sizes will make certain display cases, such as the dairy case and push-in display racks obsolete.”
= These racks become obsolete or rusted all the time. It’s a cost of doing business.
= My retailers all use flat shelves with modular product spacing because products already come in many sizes. Thus retailers would only have to adjust the shelves and displays they already have … IF a product actually changes in size.
- “Metric will also impact other types of equipment in the grocery store, including bakery pans, scales, scanners, computers, and other types of measurement equipment, requiring costly conversion or replacement.”
= The FPLA does not apply to loose goods such as goods cooked on bakery pans, measured on scales, calculated by weight at the register.
= Scanners will still read the same bar codes.
= When (not if) metric measures are applied to loose goods and goods packaged in the store, scales will have to be reprogrammed or replaced (if metric units were required for loose goods .., computers and cash registers will have to be reprogrammed.
= Computers are easily reprogrammed all the time to reflect price changes.
= When (not if) metric measures are applied to loose goods, Muffins won’t change in size. Bread won’t change in size. Baking pans will still be flat.
= Replacement/new scales and software purchased before the inevitable metric switch should include the ability to display in metric as a contingency - it doesn’t cost that much extra when you design it right from the start.
- “Shipping cases will even have to be replaced if metric-only is an option.”
= Shipping cases are already designed for the product shipped in them.
= Products are already a great variety of shapes and sizes thus already necessitating a variety of shipping case sizes.
= Shipping case sizes are the manufacturers’ problem, not the retailers’ problem.
= When manufacturers decide that their product should be internationally salable, they’ll switch to metric sizes anyway and the retailers will just have to deal with it, anyway.
= Where the retailer is the manufacturer, the manufacturing branch of the company will make the packing decisions.
- “A metric-only option may conflict with domestic feeding programs.”
- “In particular, the WIC program would be affected. The WIC program specifies certain package sizes that may not be compatible with metric requirements.
For example, under the WIC program, the following items are specified container sizes and there can be no substitutions: milk, gallon or half-gallon; canned milk, 12 ounces; non-fat dry milk, 1 pound box; canned juice, 46 fluid ounce can; infant juice, 4 fluid ounces. This will vary slightly by state. Because of this, each state would have to change or convert their package size specifications.”
= Products intended by the manufacturer to be sold to WIC may continue to be labeled and sized according to WIC rules. Retailers may continue to work with manufacturers to specify which products fall under this category.
- “Packagers may change display-only in metric units and that will require changes in unit pricing labels.”
- “There is a cost for the retailer associated with label changes, including design cost and plate changes (plates can cost in the neighborhood of $1,000).”
- “Retailers typically keep a label inventory of about 50 weeks.”
- “Retailer’s operating companies forecast what business might be like in the future (ex: tomatoes) and make future labels accordingly (thus, more label inventory).”
= These arguments don’t make sense. Are unit pricing labels the label on the shelf? If so, those get changed every at least every two weeks and as often as daily at the (computer) store I used to work for. I assume that food retailers have similar practices so that the sale price remains flexible and competitive.
= My former retail employers already had inexpensive ways of changing prices such as price sticker guns (for the toy store) and laser-printer-based shelf labels (for the computer store). Kroger appears to use laser-printed shelf labels. Publix, too. Ditto for Whole Foods and Ingles. Ditto for QuikTrip (gas station).
= Laser printed shelf labels are fast to deploy and cost only-fractions of a cent per product changed. Price sticker guns cost a little more in time and a whole lot less in materials.
= Once the metric-only OPTION is law, retailers and manufacturers will have plenty of time to change their advertising papers before any given sale.
= Once the metric-only OPTION is passed, retailers will have plenty of time (thus price change cycles) to change store labels to reflect metric-units.
= The FPLA metric-only OPTION can be passed with plenty of lead time and/or a grace period for changes necessary to software and scales.
- “In addition to unit pricing, a metric-only option will also impact UPC codes and price advertising as well as nutrition information and recipe programs.”
= Unless a product size is changed by the manufacturer on the manufacturer’s terms, there will be no impact on the product size and thus no impact on the UPC.
= Retailers already deal with inventory changes daily. Since no mandated change will occur in package sizing, no impact will occur.
= The only impact on the Nutrition Information panel should be a change in what unit the serving size is displayed in. It would make the entire Nutrition Label metric instead of everything except the serving size. Manufacturers could take the opportunity to make serving sizes reasonable (rather than, for example, 1/5 of a pizza when 1/8 or 1/6 is more likely).
= Recipes will only be affected occasionally. Retailers can assist customers through a transition by printing inexpensive but attractive conversion cheat sheets thus attract customers to their stores versus stores that don’t provide cheat sheets.
= Customers will quickly adapt their recipe(s) by making a note on the recipe card(s).