I just bought a carton of orange juice from my local happy shopper and was surprised to find:

>>>>>>
(333,8 FL OZ) 1 Liter e
<<<<<<

on the front.

I wonder if metre or someone else would like to tell me that this is an example of an Imperial ripoff where I actually thought I was going to get over three hundred ounces LOL

But really, very odd. It is the brand @Dimes@ and is evidently foreign.. not sure whence it comes.

"I wonder if metre or someone "

I'm sure you know that eric gave up weeks ago.

All that Dr Phelps and learning inch rulers stuff must have eventually got to him.

P.S. I can't be bothered to work it out for the mo - but is that label a US oz or UK oz?

Well, 1 litre is about 35.2 floz UK, and 33.8 floz US... so one can only assume they made an incredible typo when translating US ounces.

SteveH: "P.S. I can't be bothered to work it out for the mo - but is that label a US oz or UK oz?"

Bryan: "Well, 1 litre is about 35.2 floz UK, and 33.8 floz US... so one can only assume they made an incredible typo when translating US ounces."

This is a nice example of the confusion in USC/imperial units.

If it wasn't for the presense of the Litre indication no one would have known what it was.

Interesting package Bryan

Was marked in 2 different non-UK systems????

US units - not very legal over here.....

And what is a liter????

It was e-marked however, so it must be right :-) :-)

Why not complain to your local TSO....

The label could have said any figure for Floz and no-one would have noticed.

In a ridiculous system of measurement fluid ounces are one of the more ridiculous measures

So no-one would have questioned it if it said "1 million fluid ounces"? Pull the other one!

BTW - outside of this forum do you really think that people purchase drinks by the whatever hundred millilitre?

Or do you think they just pick up one "of the right size for them at that moment"?

The only drink* that is commonly asked for by its unit size (or divisions thereof) is the beer (cider/stout/ale) in our pubs.

There's (ahem) "harsh reality" for you!


[* and in some communities 'milk' too]

<<<So no-one would have questioned it if it said "1 million fluid ounces"? Pull the other one!>>>

That might raise a few eyebrows, but I think had it said 5 floz or 900 floz no-one would notice.

<<<BTW - outside of this forum do you really think that people purchase drinks by the whatever hundred millilitre?>>>

They have a far better understanding of ml than floz!

Ask someone how much is in a can of coke.

<<Ask someone how much is in a can of coke.>>

Aha!

Hold up the same can of coke, make sure your thumb is over the metric measure - and ask the same person how many millilitres are in it.......

I wasn't aware there is an imperial measure on cans

Please enlighten me..

5 fl.oz?
55 fl.oz?

I guarantee if you ask someone they will know the number of ml if anything

well 20oz is a pint so - realising that one can only roughly describe a can's contents - I'd say about half a pint or a bit over.

I'd wager people could guess a 2 litre bottle as 2 litres but would not know how many ml in a small carton.

they'd just say "small carton"

I know for a fact that the average tin is just under 12floz. The situation is reverse in America where tisn are usually marked in ounces. One would not know how many mils to a tin.

And how are fluidoucnes absurd? One fluidounce is approximately one ounce, just as one milllilitre is approxiately one gram. The difference is the relationship between ounces and fluidounces is more transparent than the relationship between millilitres and grammes. "But what about the relationship between cubic centimetres and millilitres versus cubic inches and fluidounces, Bryan?" I hear you cry..... well, to that I say when was the last time you concieved of a capacity- i.e. bottle of coke or bucket of water etc- in terms of its volume, and how many times in terms of its weight? Even when using metric I find it much more practical to reckon in kilograms and litres than to reckon in litres and cubic metres, or cubic metres (or whatever) and kilogrammes. Likewise, how often do you concieve of say a pizza in terms of its diameter- be you using Imperial or metric- and how many tiems do you concieve of it in terms of surface area? Whilst surface area is more logical, diameter is more intuitive (in metric or in Imperial).

<<
This is a nice example of the confusion in USC/imperial units.

If it wasn't for the presense of the Litre indication no one would have known what it was.
>>

Of course not, because the fluid ounce indication was wrong.

Apparently, you're blaming the typing mistake on the system of measurement rather than on the person that wrote it.
Please explain why you do that.

All I can remember is that when I lived in Toronto in the 50s and 60s,, the original coke bottle was 7Fl oz. Now I don't know if that was US Fl oz or Imperial Fl oz since TO is in Canada and that was long before metrication. I do know Canada used the Imperial Gallon and thence the Imperial Pint was 20 Fl oz while the US Gallon was smaller but the US pint was only 16 Fl oz. This means that there was little difference between US and Imperial Fl oz (7 US Fl oz = 7.286 UK Fl oz).

Then they brought out the 12 Fl oz bottle!

<<<<Of course not, because the fluid ounce indication was wrong.

Apparently, you're blaming the typing mistake on the system of measurement rather than on the person that wrote it.
Please explain why you do that.>>>>


Very very few people in the UK have much idea of fluid ounces - The fact that the mistake wasn't noticed from production through to point of sale merely illustrates that. Had the label said the correct number of floz and a ridiculous number of litres, someone would have spotted it.

<<I know for a fact that the average tin is just under 12floz >>

Heh! not far off then was I?

Right I'm off to ask my local shopkeeper for 330ml of coke to see if he asks me poitely to leave his shop!!!

err, Andy, you obviously didn't read what I wrote- it was a FOREIGN product from Eastern Europe, I beleive. It was imported into this country. IT WAS noticed at sale, it was noticed by me as I bought it (hence this thread). IF it had been produced in the UK I bet this mistake would not have occurred.

Bet you were the only one though Bryan

Most people wouldn't be looking for the label- I know for a fact that most people don't bother to check the content of those kinds of things. Loose fruit and veg is a different story however.

indeed it is - hence the need for strict regulation as to how it is sold.

<<hence the need for strict regulation as to how it is sold>>

is that ref to loose or packed?

Bryan said

"it was a FOREIGN product from Eastern Europe, I beleive"

Bryan also said that it was e-marked ie "(333,8 FL OZ) 1 Liter e"

If it was e-marked, that mark should be applied by the packer within the EC or the importer into the EC. A name & address of the packer/importer should also be marked on the package.

But of course, that would be over-regulation (according to many posters here). Better to have US units marked (even if they are incorrect) so it can be counted as yet another example of packaging in "traditional" UK units.

So according to this example, products in Eastern Europe are labelled first in US units and then metric in parenthesis? That doesn't seem right. Any other examples anyone?

Well, it was US units first in brackets (hate the term parenthesis), and second metric in no brackets. I have seen this many other times. For instance, I am some fish oil here from East Asia also marked in US floz and then in metric.

This is were things get silly, Berenger.

I have been to many european countries where US imperial (usually, sometimes UK) is marked first and metric (in odd figures second).

It appears (as per usual) that the UK sticks to the EU rules in an overzealous manner whilst our european neighbours have a more relaxed manner about these things ending up with a perverse situation where you can end up seeing more imperial in Europe than in the UK!

Bloody politicians!

Most likely, the EU is not pressuring other countries as much because they are already substantially metric.
Or, in other words, the EU directives were drafted with the UK in mind!

Bud wrote

<<
Or, in other words, the EU directives were drafted with the UK in mind!
>>

No - nothing could be farther form the truth. Prior to 1980, there were all sorts of units of measure across Europe - often they were metric units but with a colloquial name - eg "pfund", "livre", "atto" (100g in Italy). What the directive did was to ensure that all countries used the same symbols. For example, when I went to Italy for the first time(1975), pizza sliced were priced by the "atto" - I did not know if that was a slice or a weight. Now however they are priced by the 100g - which is a pretty international way of pricing things.

I tell you I would have preferred the atto. What is it with some people that they can't deal with the differences that other natons may have compard with their own?

I totally agree Bryan. Its inevitable during the natural evolution of a system that local names are developed eg atto for 100g, pfund, livre for 500g. Nowt wrong with that at all.

<<
I tell you I would have preferred the atto. What is it with some people that they can't deal with the differences that other natons may have compard with their own?
>>

In the EU context, it is important that the rules governing product specifications be as consistent as possible. For example, as a diabetic, I alwys check the label of any product for the sugar content. The layout is the same across all EU countries making my job a lot easier. The directive of use of units is merely part of this process.

<<Or, in other words, the EU directives were drafted with the UK in mind!>>

You are utterly correct Bud.
It seems that most new legislation affects the UK only!

All the French had to do was stop making yellow headlights - which, once again, was better than white headlights so they -erm- had to change 'em.

Didn't they?

Bloody stupid!